Hazelo Labs Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:4776 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Hazelo Labs P!,t.Ltd., having its registered office at 8-3-1661711,3rd Floor, A Wing, Erragadda, Hyderabad - 500 018, represented by its Manager B Srinivas Reddy S/o Subba Reddy, Aged 50 years,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The [,4andal Surveyor, B.Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri, Bhongir District, Telangana State.

¶13

3 Sri Gummi Narender Reddy, S/o Late Ranga Reddy r/o Jiblakpally Village, B.Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana Stale.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 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 an order, direction, or Writ, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Notice No.Bl25l2025 dated 01.02.2025 (served on the petitioner on O4.O2.2025), fixing the survey of non-ag ricu ltu ra I land in Survey No.242,243 of Jibalak Palli Village, B.Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, (belonging to the petitioner) on 19.02,2025 and in not considering the objections raised by the petitioner and submitted to the second respondent on 14.02.2025, as illegal, void, arbitrary, in contravention of the provisions of Survey and Boundaries Act and rules thereof and in breach of rights of the petitioner, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to conduct survey of non-agricultural land in Survey No.242,243

¶16

of Jibalak Palli fillage, B.Pochampally [/andal, Yadadri Bhongir District, (belonging to the petitioner).

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the 2nd respondent not to conduct survey of non-ag^ricu ltu ral land in Survey No.242,243 of Jibalak Palli Village, B.Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, (belonging to the^petitioner) on 19.02.2025 or any other subsequent date suspending the Notice in File^No. B/2512025 dated^{01 .O2.2025} (served on the petitioner on 04.02.2025) issued by the 2nd respondent. pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI SHARATH KUMAR

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

ffig/
f:$::q7...- l'
7

¶24

7i

¶25

HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.4776 of 2025

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This writ petition is filcd questioning the noticc No.B/25/2025, dated O1.O2.2025, issued by respondent No.2

¶29

It is stated that the notice No.Bl25/2025, dated Ol .O2.2025, has been issued to the petitioner against the application submitted by respondent No.3 for conducting a survey of land in Sy.Nos.239, 242 ar,d 243 ot Ziblak Palli, B.Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Districrt. lt is lurther stated that the petitioncr is the absolute owner and possessor of the land forming part in Sy.Nos.242, 243, 247, 248 and 249 having purchased the same through various registered sale deeds. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar. Thereaiter, the petitioner has applied for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purposes under the provisions of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 and obtained necessary conversion permission from the Competent authority. The above referred property purchased through registered sale deed is util2ing for non-agricultural purpose. It is further stated that disputrng the

¶30

2

¶31

CVBR, J Wp 4776 2O25

¶32

possession of thc petitioner over the aforementioned survcy numbers purchased under registered sale deed, respondenl No.3 has madc an application for seeking to conduct the survcy of thc land ir-r Sv.Nos.239 , 242 and 243 and acting on the samc, rcspondent No.2 issued the impugned notice.

¶33

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective partics and with their consent, this u,rit petiliolt is being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶34

Learned cour-rscl appcaring for the petitioner has submitted that oncc the lat'rd is ceased to be non-agricultural land, the Tahsildar does not have any power or authorily to entertain an F Line application submitted by respondent No.3. F-Line means Field Measuremcnt of the agricultural land and thc said application is only applicablc for conducting of survey of agricultural land. Since the land has already been converted to non-agricultural purpose, thc respondents do not have anv power or authority to issue the impugned notice, date cl O1.O2.2025, for conducting of survey.

¶35

Per contra, Sri Mr. Sharath Kumar, learned counscl appearing for rcspondent No.3 would submit that respondent

3

CVBR, J wp 4776 2025

\ \

No.3 is the owner and possessor of land forming part of othcr survey numbers which are adjacent to the land purchased by the petitioner. While conducting survey of land in Sy.No.239, it is neccssary for the surveyor to issue notici to the adjacent pattadars and also to the persons, who are interested and affected, for conducting the survey. Learned counsel further submitted that the procedure adopted by respondent No.2 in issuing notice for conducting survey does not suffer from Iegal inhrmities warranting interlerencc of this Court under Article 226 ol Constitution of lndia and prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

¶40

A careful examination of the material on record, primo focie,^{it appears thatthe petitioncr had purchasedthe lar-rd in} Sy.Nos.242, 243 ar.d other survey numbers through various registered sale deeds. It is also seen from the record that the said lanrl was utilizing for the purpose of running industry. When adjacent land owners have disputed the ownership of land in Sy.No.239, there is a dispute relating to overlapping of survey numbers, the survey department has power to conduct the survey. No doubt, it is settled law that the surwey department does not have^power to conduct the survey o[ non-

4

CVBR, J Wp_1776_2025

I

agricultural land once the land has been convertod into plots. However, in tlris case, the land which is in the posscssion of the petitioner is being uscd for industrial purposcs. Whereas, respondent No.3 claimcd that his land was situatcd adjacent to the land of thc petitioner. Thcrcfore, to put a quietus to the litigation, this wril- petition is disposed of clirecting the respondents, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner and adjacent pattadars, to proceed to conduct survey strictly in accordance with circular instructions issued by the Commissioner, Survey, Settle men ts and Land Records, vide Rc.No.Nl/6543/99, dated 25.O7.2OO1, Rc.No.Nl lr4O8 lOi, dated 13.O7.2007, and Rc.No.N2/ 174l l2OlO, dated 18.05.2O10 and the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and also as pcr the provisions of Tclangana Land Revenr.r<: Act, 1 3 17 Fasli, It is ncedless to obscrvc that if any survey conducted in pursuance to the application submitted by respondent No.3 or at the instancc of lhe petitioncr, mere conducting of the survey does not takc away the cxisting rights of any party nor it will create any rigl'rt basing on the survey report. If, after conducting the survey, it is found that the persons concerned are not entitled to continue in possession, they are at liberty to

¶45

5

¶46

CVBR, J wp 4776 2025

¶47

approach the competent civil Court to avail the remedies as available under law.

¶48