Smt. M. Pushpavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. M. Pushpavathi, W/o Late It/. Srinivasulu, aged about 44 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H. No. 1-1812, Kanaipally village, Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶10

2 Smt. Khajabee, W/o. Sayyed Osman, aged about 43 years, Occ. Household, Vo^{H. No. 2-2514,Konnur village,N/adanapuraniMandal, Wanaparthy} District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

The Thasildar, Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶15

a The Mandal Surveyor, Thasil office, Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶16

M. Arun Kumar, S/o. lvl. Narasimha, aged about 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H. No. 129-83, Kothakota Town and lvlandal, Wariaparthy District

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\rlandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in issuing the impugned notice in file No. Dl2Bgl2O25, dated 17-02-2025 to conduct survey of the land in Sy. No. 342, at Kothakota village and A/andal, Wanaparthy District including the survey of plot No. S3/Part and Plot No. 40 of the petitioners in Sy. No. 342, though the matter is pending before the civil court in, O.S. No. 117120j1 as filed by the 4th respondent himself and also O.S. No. 8712024 and O.S. No. BBl2024 as filed by the petitioners as against the 4th respondent on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and

¶19

___=v

¶20

consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to withdraw the above survey notice, dated 17.02.2025.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned survey notice issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in file No. D128912O25, dated^'1 710212025 including stay of survey of the land in Sy. No. 342, at Kothakota village, and Mandal Wanaparthy District, pending disposal of main Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.S3OB of 2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶29

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶30

"...to issue an order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus deciaring the action^of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in issuing the impugned noticeⁱⁿ file No.D/289/2025, dated 17.O2.2O25 to conduct^{survey of} the land in Sy.No.342, at Kothakota Village and^Manda1 Wanaparthy District including the Survey of^{plot No.53/Part} and Plot No.4O of the petitioners in Sy.No.342 though^the matter is pending before the civil court in O.S.No.117/20i1 as filed by the respondent No.4 himself and also^O.S.No. 87 12024 and O.S.No.S8 12024 as Iiied by the^{petitioners as} against the respondent No.4 on the file of Junior^Civil Judge, Atmakur as illegal, unlawful, contrary to^{1aw and} consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3^{to withdraw} the above survey notice, dated 17.O2.2O25 and^pass..."

¶31

It is stated that petitioner No.1 is the owner of^plot

¶32

bearing No.53/part in Sy.Nos.342, 342 lAa, admeasuring 209.77 Sq.yards and petitioner No.2 is the owner^{of plot} No.40 in Sy.No.342/Aa, admeasuring^2OOSq.yards situated at Kothakota town and Mandal, Wanaparthy District. It is the case of the petitioners that during the lifetime of the original owners, the subject lands were *- -coflverted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose

¶33

and sold the plots to third parties and the petitioners are have also purchased the said plots and they peacefully residing in the subject property and some of them, who purchased the plots have a-lso constructed the houses. It iurther stated that suppressing the said fact, without making the petitioners as party defendants, respondent No.4 has instituted O.S.No.117 of 2011 and obtained ex-parte decree as if the subject property is an agricultural iand. Basing on the said order, dated 26.O4.2018, when respondent No.4 made efforts to interfere with the possession of the petitioners, they were constrained to file O.S.Nos.87 and BB of 2024 on the file of the Court ol the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur and the same are pending.

¶34

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. In vieu. of the nature of relief sought for in this

¶35

t t

¶36

writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial respondent is dispensed with.

¶37

Lear-ned counsel lor the petitioners has submitted that since the subject lands has already been^converted from agricultural use to non-agricultural^purpose,the survey authority is not having any^power or^{authority to} conduct the survey, more particularly, when the suits instituted by the petitioners are pending for adjudication.

¶38

In view of the above submissions, this Court, without without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, and as the petitioners have already submitted objections to the impugned notice^uide No.D /289 12025, dated 77.O2.2O25, deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing respondent^No.3- Tahsildar, to consider and examine the objections^raised by the petitioners and pass appropriate^ordersbefore proceeding with the survey, pursuant to the impugned notice, dated L7 .O2.2O25.

¶39