Dismissed

Ranga Raju Laxman Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Aug 2025WP/31267/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Purchasers sought direction to replace old Mazi No.13/4 with new survey numbers based on an unimplemented 1954 survey, after their Section 87 correction petition was rejected. The Court held that since the resurvey was not implemented, no clerical error existed to correct under Section 87; it also found suppression of facts by petitioner No.2 and dismissed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions also dismissed.

Ranga Raju Laxman Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31267 OF 2017

¶7

Between

¶8

Ranga Raju Laxman Rao, s/olate Venkeshwar Rao aged about 78^yrs, Occp Agriculture r/o Kongara Khurd village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy district-

¶9

M.J- Thomas, s/o Joseph aged 65 yrs, occp Agrl. r/o Kongarakurd^village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

¶10

Ranga Raju Kamalamma W./o Late R. Laxman Rao, aged 75^years, Occ House wife, R/o Kongara Khurd Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

Ranga Raju Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late R. Laxman Rao, Aged 50^years, Occ AgriCulutre, R/o Kongara khurd Village, Maheshwararm Mandal , Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

Ranga Raju Seshagiri Rao, S/o Late R. Laxman Rao Aged 48^years,Rl/o Kongara khurd Village, Maheshwararm Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶13

Ranga Raju Venkateshwara Rao, S/o Late R. Laxman Rao, Aged 44^years, ' Rl/o. Kongara Khurd Village, Maheshwararm Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

Petitioners 3to6 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased Petitioner No. 1 as per C.O. dated 2210612023 in l.A No. 1/2019

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its^prl. Secrelary, Revenue( Survey and^Land Records) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶18

2 The Commissioner, Survey and Settlement Government, of^Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶19

3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy district. Telangana

¶20

4 The Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal. Ranga Reddy district.^Telangana.

¶21

5 The Assistant Director, Office of Assistant Director Survey and Land^Records, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to issue a writ or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the MEMO No.A1/419212013 dated 7-5-2015 issued by sth respondent and^the inaction on the part of respondents in updating survey and revenue^{records with}

¶24

regard to [Vazi number 13/4 of Kongara Kurd(B) Village as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and amounting to infringement of fundanental rights of writ petitioners, the respondents may be directed to incorpcrelte, on the basis of survey conducted in the year 1954, necessary changes in all survey and revenue records to replace said Mazi number 13/4 with new Survey Numbers 449 extent Ac.13-10 gts i.e., Ac.^'10.39 gts infavour of 1st petitioner anj Ac.Z.11gts in Sy.No 449 and Sy.No Ac.11 39 gts in Sy.No 450 in the name of purchasers of 2nd petitioner, situated at Kongara Khurd(B) village, Maheshr,vzrram Mandal Randa Reddy district without any fu(her delay

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 38952 0F 20171

¶26

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the ci.cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou 1 may be preased to restrain the respondents from making any proposed generel resurvey of lands of writ petitioners in lvlazi number 13t4 before it is replace d in all survey and revenue records, with new Survey Numbers 44g extent pc 13_10 gts and 450 extent Ac.11.39 gts of Kongara Khurd (B) vilage, Maheshvraram Mandar Randa Reddy district, pending final disposal of main writ petition

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. HANUMANTH RAO

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondents: Smt. S. SRAVANTHI, AGp Fr)R REVENUE

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

SK,J W.l' No 31267 of 20 l7

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶32

WRIT PETITION Nos.i]1267 of 2017 ORDER:

¶33

This writ pe'.ition is filcci c;ucstioning^{thc I{cmo} No.AI1419212013 datcd^{07.o52-o l5issued by the} rcspondent No.S and lLLe^inat:t iotl^{on the part of the} respondcr)ts in updatine tlrr' :iuIVeY and^I'cvcnue records with regard^t-o Mazi^{}lo. t3/'1 of Kotlgara Khurd} (13) Viltage as iilt-gai and arbitlalv and to direct^the rcsporldcnts to incot-1lora t(r on^{I lrcbasis ofsun/ey} conductcd in thc 1'cerr,¹⁹⁵ⁱ⁴ .^{r ic,.;cssarychanges in all} survey and rcvcrlLrc rrlct,rls^{!rj|c:placc :;ilidMazi} No. 13/4 with ne^{tr*, :lv. No.zl"t9 atclnt t-,r su ring Lo arl exte nl} ol Ac. l3- 10 gts i.i:,^{i\c. I0.119 g,ts ir-r lavour ofthc} petitioncr No.1, Sr,-l\o.449 adrnt:a:;ltring^{to an cxtent of} A<:.2-1.1 gts and 31'.No.450^{adrncas:lirirtgto an cxtcrrtof} Ac. 1 I .ll9 gts in ihc ri3m(: of^{put'r:'l-ti,is...'tsol lhc pctitionr:t'} No.2 sitttal.ccl^?.r r. l(o'trllat:r^{iiirurd. (B)Villagc.}

--1

)

SK.J W.P.No. ! I 267 of 2017

¶38

Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrir:t u/ithout any lurther delay.

¶39

Heard Sri V. Hanumanth Rao, learned c:)._rnsel for the petitioners and Smt S. Sravanthi, learnr:cl Assistant Govcrnment Pleader lor Re venue lor thc res;F)onclents and perused thr: material on record.

¶40

Learned Counsei for thc petitioners sultnLits that the father of the petitioner No. 1 latc Venkatt:slr,.r,ar Rao was the owner and possessor of agricul tr_r rr: lalds admeasuring to ar-r extent of Ac.13.lO gts ir-r Sr..No.449 and Ac.11.39 gts in Sy.No.450 situated a1 liongara Khurd (B) viilage of erstwl-rile Ibrahimpatnam^.l.a.uq ancl after formation of Mandals, the villagc h r; been a-llocated to Maheshwaram Revenue Marclal ir Ralga Reddy District. He submits that as the said village rvas un-surveyed, thc respondents have roughly r),)1ed the lands held by each individual land holder in the village

¶41

SK.J W.P.No.3l267 of 2017

¶42

and in that process, the lands held by said Late Venkateshwar Rao were noted as No.13/4 known as 'Mazi Number' in all survcy records by measuring roughiy the extent as 19.00 bigas=Ac.14.10 gts. He submits that in the year, 1954, regular survey was conducted in the entire village, measured all the lands scientifically ald assigned rcgular survey numbers. After survey, the total extent of land in the said Mazi No. 13/4 was lound to be Ac.2S.09 gts and the same was bifurcated into two portions as Ac.13_lO gts and Ac.11.39 gts giving initially rr.i,o chalta numbers as 47 II and 47/2 respectivcl.y ancl thcn assigned two regular survey numbers as Sy. No.449 lor the portion of land admeasudng to an extcrrl of Ac.13_10 gts and Sy.No.45O for thc portion of lanci admeasur.ing to an extent of Ac. I 1 .39 gts respcclively and all relevalt records such as Wasool Baki, Tekha Bandhi, prathi Book, Mozni plot, Pucca l3ook. f ippan and Correlatiorr

-1

._l

SK,.] W.P.No.3 2t)7 oi 2017

¶47

statements u'hich are available with the respondents would establish the said fact. He submits tt-lirt despite the survey conducted in the year, 1954 anc GazetLe was issued ir-r the year, 1958 giving sanctitl to said survey, the revenue authorities have neither incorporated the new Sy.Nos.449 and 450 rrr>r their respectrve extents Ac. 13.10 gts zrnd Ac.11.39 etr; in thc revenue records and continued the old |1o.13/4 erroneously in the revenue records.

¶48

Learned Counsel for the petitioners lurther submits that the petitioner No.2 has purchi:sed the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 14.10 gts lrom late Vcnkateshwar Rao arld menlioned the very ()Lrtdatecl Mazi No.13/4 in the sale deed 116.3rr2: / 1985 dated 28.03. 1985. The petitioners have hled zi petition on 19.O9.2O13 before the Commissioner, Sur,.,ey and Settlement, under Section 87 of AP (Telangar a Area)

¶49

¶50

SK,J w.P.No.31267 of 2017

¶51

)

¶52

Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for Short 'the Act, 1317 Fasli) for incorporation of correct extents with correct survey numbers in the revenue records and the same was rejected by the respondent No.5 vide impugned Memo No.Al l4192l2Ol3 dated 07.05.2015 on technical reasons. He submits that though the respondent authorities have mcntioncd in the Memo that the survey records of the ycar, 1954 were not implemented, but no reason lvas mentioned about non implementation of survey records and the same is unsustainable. He submits that once the survey records were finalized and gezetted, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to update thc rccords incorporating the details in all conccrned records and due to incorporation of new survey numbers with respective extents, the petitioners are unable to exercise their rights on the updated exte nt of their lands and requested to allow the writ pctition by directing the

r=!

..]

SK.J W.P.No.3 '267 ol 2Ol7

¶57

respondents to incorporate the necessary clLangos 1n the revenue records.

¶58

Learned Assistalt Government Plet icler for

¶59

Revcnue, basing on the counter submits that initially in Kongara Khurd Jagir Village, there are total 2(r1 survey numbers with total extent of Ac. 1620.l4 ets and subscquently survey of the village u,as conduclc,:1 in the year, 1954 and survey records have been preprrred rvith toLal 649 su1-vey numbers with total extent ,rf land admcasuring to an extent of Ac.3124.26 gts and the revenue records in Kongara Khurd Village hitv.e been divided into Kongara Khurd-A, which consistr; of 4OO sur/ey numbt:rs and Kongara Khurd-B village which consists of 74 survey numbers. She submits Lhat the survcy and settlement records prepared after revision survcy conducted in the year, 1954 \l)re not implemented and the reasons are not known. As, lter the

¶60

¶61

SK,J W. P. No.31267 ot 2017

¶62

Rules, any survey and settlement records prepared after revision survey should be implernented within a period of two yea-rs, otherwise the same will be lapsed and in the present case a-lso, the said records were lapsed and the same cannot be implemented at this juncture. She submits that the names ol the petitioners were recorded in the pahani of Kongara Khurd (B) Village against old Sy. No. 13/4, however there is no problenr to the petitioners for not implementing the revision survey and settlement records prepared in the year, 1954.

¶63

Learned Assistant Government Pleade r lurther submits that on the petition hled by the petitioners for implementation of survey arrd settlement records in respect of old Sy.No.13/a (ncrr,, Nos.449 and 450) admeasuring Ac. 10.39 gts, the Tahsildar, Maheshwalarn Mandal issued Endorsement No.D/621/2012 dated 12.07.2O72 informing that unril

¶64

Ittt\l'\l

¶65

SK,J W.P.No l: 1 267 ot2017

¶66

..1

¶67

¶68

a specific clarificaLion ascertained with regarl to the survcy settlement aspect, no lurther stanrl can be takcn.

¶69

l,earned Assistant Government pleader for- Revenue furt.her subnrits that the respondent No.5 hrrs issued the impugnccl memo informing that the petitio,r,:rs l-iave purr:hased the land from its previous hoidcr a ncl that the purchaser is not in possession of lan<l in Sy.No. 13/4 at tl-rc time of resurvey of lald aclrLe asuring to an extent of r\c. 14-10 gts in theyear, 1985, but the resurvey was conducted and Gazette was issu:r1 in the year. 1954 prior to this transaction and also the re_ survey recor<ls were not implemented. She further subr.nits that the provision of Section 87 of the Act. 13 1 7 Fasli does not arise since it is not a cor.recl.ion case and therefore , the petitioners are not e1t._i !1ed for excess area as claimed by them and they arc t:ntjtled

¶70

)

¶71

¶72

SK,J W.P.No.3l267 of 2017

¶73

lor the extents as recorded in the revenue and survey settlement records. She further submits that the old pattadars of the lands in Kongara Khurd Village have not raised any claims and objections during the year 1955-56 for non-implementation of survey and settlement records prepared in the year, 1954 and moreover, the petitioners are not the original pattadars but they are only the purchasers of the land in Sy.No. 13 14 and these petitioners are not concerned with any excess land allegedly purchased by them during the year, 1985 basing on the said survey and settlement records of the year, 1954, which were not implemented and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief sought for and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶74

After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner

E,-

...]

SK,J lV.P.No..l 1267 of 20 I 7

¶79

No.2 has frlcri writ affidavit claiming that he has purchased thc property from the father of the Jretitioner No.1 i.e, Ranga p-aju Venkateswar Rao through registered doctrment No.394/g5 dated 2g.Ol .l9g5 for the land admeasuring to at1 extent of Ac. 14 1 O gls in Sy.No. i3/a As per the impugned Memo No.A1l4192 l2013 dated 07.05.2015, the requcst oithe petitioner No.2 for rectification of area acc,rrding to rcsur\rey recorrl in respect of Sy.No.13/4 (old) is correlated to Sy.Nos.449 and 450 in resurve), ,situated at Kongaral<hurd Village, IVaheshwaram Marda-1, was rejected.

¶80

The ccntcn[ioi-r of the petitioner No.2 is that lale Ranga Raju Vr:nkateswar Rao held la-nds in Mazi No.13/4 in all survey records with roughly nr<:asured extent as 19.00 bigas=Ac.14.10 gts and later, in the year, 1954 regular survey was conductcd in tlre. entire

:iK .l W. P. No.31267 of 20 l7

¶85

village and measured a-11 the lands scientihcally and assigned regular survey numbers. After survey, Mazi No. 13/4 was found to be Ac.25.09 gts and the same was bifurcated into two portions as Ac.13-10 gts and Ac. 11.39 gts with two cha-lta numbers AS 47ll and 47 /2 respectively and also assigned two regular Survey numbers i.e., Sy.No.449 for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-10 gts and Sy.No.450 for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.11.39 gts. In spite of conducting survey, the respondents have not incorporated new survey numbers such as Sy.Nos.449 and 450 and continuing old No.13/4 erroneously in the records. In view of the sarne, the petitioner No.2 has made a representation on 19.O9.2013 to the Commissioner, Survey and Settlement under Section 87 of the Act, 1317 Fasli seeking incorporation of correct survey numbers in the revenue records and the same was rejected by the respondent No.S in the impugned

¶86

¶87

,) SK,J W.P.No 31267 of 2017

¶88

Memo on the ground that the petitioner has p,urchased the land from its previous land holder and the purchaser is not in possession of land in Sy. \c. L3 /4 at the time of resurvey and he has purchased Ar:.14-10 gts in the year, 1985, but the resurvey was corrcuLcted and Gazette was issued in thc year 1954 prirtr. to this transaction and also the resurvey records^.were not impiementecl and in the instant case, the pr-c,vision of Section 87 ol the Act, 1317 Fasli does not aris,: since it is not a case of correction of entries.

¶89

In the instant case, there is no clerical error to correct the entries as per Section 87 of the Act, 1317 Fasli and tl.re contentions raised by the pe.titioners cannot be t reated as clerical error as thcre is no implementation of survey numbers. Moreover, the survey was conducted in the year, 1954 and the same was not implemented. The pattadars of the viJl:rge have

¶90

¶91

¶92

SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017

¶93

not submitted any representation for implementation of the same and they are enjoining their respective properties since 70 years and now, the petitioners taking advantage of the olfice note of the respondent authorities want to extend the land.

¶94

1 1 The documcnt filcd along with n rit aflidavit revcals at Page Nos.23 to 25 witl-r regard to the registered sale deed document No.394/85 on the file of the Sub-Rcgistrar, Ibrahimpatnam. 'lhe said document was executed by Smt Chetkuri Laxmamma w/o.Ramachandra Reddy in favour of Mr. Brother Maurice s/o. Mathew and thc pctitioner No.2 for the Iand admeasuring to an extent of Ac. t4-10 gts rvhich is equivaLlent Lo 5.77 Hectors in Sy.No. l3/4 sitr_ratcd at Kongara Khurd 'B'Village under thc Gram Panchayat of Raviryal Viilage, Maheshwaram Taluk. Ranga Reddy District. In the prescn I writ peLilion, the petitioncr has

<sup>"--r

(-l

SK,J W.P.No.31 ).('7 of^',1.O17

¶99

suppressed^{the lacts by misleadingthis Courl and hled} writ a-fhdavit^{stating th:rt the petitioner No'2alonehas} purchased the^{property from the father of the 1re'titioner} No. 1 i.e., late^{Ranga Raju Venkateswa-rRa'l, which} arnounts to^{atlusc olproccss of the Corr:t' The} petitioner No.2 has^{nladc arcpresentatior tothe} authorities^{for correctiotlof entrie s as per Section 87 of} the Act, 1317^{Fasli based on tl.re survey conclrtcted in} the year, 1954^{ior cxter-rding the lands from Ac'14 00} gts to Ac.25.00 gts.^{In fact, the petitionerNo ll has not} purchased the land^{lrom the said VenkateshwarRao'} Moreover, the^{pctitionelNo.2:rlone is not Lhe ownerof} entire property^{of sale dccd in DocumentNo 394/85'}

¶100

There is^no d i spute: u,ith^regard t() nonimplementation^{of the survel' conducted in :he year,} 1954. Once the^{survey conducted by the at.rl.horities} was not implernented,^{the question of corr:r:tion of}

¶101

¶102

SK,J W. P. No.31267 of 20 l7

¶103

I I

¶104

entries as per Section 87 ol the Act, 1317 Fasli does not arise. Afte r conducting survey, the entries were mutated and i[ there is arry mistake in the revenue records, then only Section 87 of the Act, 1317 Fasli will come into force. In the instant case, the petitioners have not filcd any document to show that the ancestor of the petitioner No.1 was the owner of the property pertaining to Sy.No. J 3/4. Morcover, the petitioners have not concerned u.ith anI excess land as they have purchased the land in the year,1985. In view of the same, this is a fit case to impose heavy costs on the petitioners, but reslrained to do the sarne and dismissed the writ petition without imposing costs on the petitioners

¶105

In view o[ the above findings, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to cosl s.

¶106

¶107

---l

¶108

SK,.] \V.l).No..l I^).67 of 2017

¶109

Misceilaleous petitions, il any pending in this

¶110

writ petition, shall stand dismisscd.

¶111

Sd/.P.C SULEKHA^DEVI ASSiISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to SRI V. HANUMANTH^RAO,Advocate [OP[JC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High^{Court for the S ate of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT] 3 Two CD Copies

BM PMK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910812025

ORDER

WP.No.31267 of 2017

o'' i llf- STAf
('
1[ t.lr]V 2ffi
,, r 113tr(11_

¶123

DISMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶124

b
\g \ gr(

Ranga Raju Laxman Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranga Raju Laxman Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chigurintha Pedda Bal Reddy s/o late C Yella Reddy Vs The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar

Smt. v. Varsha, Medak District Vs the Dist. Collector, Medak Dist. and 3 Othrs

A. Rayinder Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Telangana

Greater City Auto Owners Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Gopey Mary Ratnam Vs The State of Telangana

M. Ramesh, S/o Nanaji, Vs The State of Telangana