Disposed

Gorrepati Mounika, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Apr 2025WP/9931/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

House-plot owners in Sy.Nos.132/8 and 132/C, Gorrekunta Village challenged survey notices issued despite an earlier Assistant Director order stating the land is built up and no partly survey is permitted. The court disposed of the petition allowing representations and restraining survey pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners may file representation/explanation to the survey notices; authorities to decide on merits; survey and possession interference restrained until decision.

Gorrepati Mounika, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:9931 OF 202s

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1 . Gorrepati Mounika, Wo. Dhanala Venugopal, aged about 31 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.1-8-74lC, Manas Sriram Heights, Flat^No. c3, Sai Ram Theatre Road, Jubilpura, Khammam.

¶11

Kalakonda Kantha Chary, S/o. Late Ramaiah, Aged about 69^years, Occ. Carpenter, R/o. Sangam, Warangal.

¶12

Thoutam Devender, S/o. Chandraiah, aged about 65^years, Occ.^Business, Rt/o. House No. 7-2-5331601, Ganganagar, Godavarikhani Ramagunda, Karimnagar.

¶13

Parkala Narayana, , Sio. Mallaiah, aged about 55^years, Occ. Business,^Rl/o. H.No. 4-2lA, Duddenapalle, Saidapoor Mandal, Karimnagar.

¶14

Boddula Gattaiah, S/o. Venkat Rajani, aged about 77^years, Occ.^Business, R/o. H.No. 16-10-149, Medar Basthi, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist

¶15

Kalakonda Devendram, S/o. Narsaiah, aged about^{72 years, Occ. Business,} Rl/o. H.No. 8-42, J.P. Colony, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District.

¶16

Basani Sathyanarayana, Sio. Chandraiah, aged about 50^{years, Occ.} Business, Rl/o. House No. 11.20-03, Markandeya Street,^Kashibugga, Warangal.

¶17

B. Vangala Pradeep, S/o. Sudhakar, aged about 33^{years,Occ.Business,Fl/o.} House No.^'l -64, Pravarthigiri Village and Mandal, Warangal District.

¶18

Billa Uday Chander, S/o. Late Motiram, aged about 52^{years, Occ. Private} Employee, Ryo. House No.11-1414, Sriramnagar Colony,^{Bala.ii Nagar'} Jawahar Nagar, PO Ji Nagar Colony, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶19

Kota Yadagiri, S/o. K. Agaiah, aged about 74^{years, Occ. Business,Rl/o.} Vijayalakshmi Street Shop, Kazipet, Hanumakonda District.

¶20

11.Rajoju Srija, D/o. Surendar, aged about 20^years, Occ.^{Student, Rl/o H.No.} 14-24139, Plot No. 72, Beeramguda, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy^Dist.

¶21

l2.Kalakonda Ram Narayana, S/o. Narsaiah, aged^about 55^years,Occ. Carpenter, R:/o. H.No- 4-64, Sangem, Warangal.

¶22

'l3.Kodam Venu, S/o. llaiah, aged about 48 years, Occ. Private Employee, Rl/o. H.No. 1 1-16-35/2, Ramulavari Veedhi, Kashibugga, Warangal.

¶23

l4.Bodakuntla Sarojana, Wo. B. Chandramouli,^{Aged about 72 years,Occ.} Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 11-18-140, Kashibugga, Warangal.

¶24

't 5. Bodakuntla Raj Kumar, S/o. Chandramouli, Aged about 48 years, OCC. Private Employee, R/o. H.No.^11-18-140, Kashibugga,^Hanumakonda.

¶25

Shahazadunnisa Begum, W/o. Mohammad Khaja, aged about 73 years, Occ. Housewife, Ri./o.H.No.1-2-293, Rahamathnagar,Kazipet, Hanumakonda, Kazipet.

¶26

1 7. Nagula Vijay, S/o. Sambashivudu, aged about 44 yeats, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Quarter. No. LIG H-1-No.4, Keerthinagar Colony, Gorrekunta Villatge, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal Dist.

¶27

'lS.Eppalapelli Devika, Wo. Late E. Krishna, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No. 1 6-1 0-1 1 89, Shivanagar, Warangal.

¶28

Singam Biksham, S/o. Ramaiah, aged about 79 y"rr., Occ. Employee, R/o.H.No.6-2-35/25, Krishna Colony, Mahabubabad.

¶29

Akarapu , Hymavathi, W/o. Sambashiva, aged about 51 years, Occ. Housewife, House No. 10-3-121, Giramjipet, Warangal.

¶30

21 .Kodali Jyothi, W/o. Ganesh, aged about 43 years, Occ. Housewife, Rt/o. House No. I 1-18-1093/3, Vivekananda Colony, Kashibugga, Warangal Dist.

¶31

22.Pindi Sumithra Devi, Wo. Guru Murthy, aged about 77 yea$, Occ. Staff Nurse (Government Employee), Ryo. H.No. 1-1-903/1, Siddarthnagar, Street No. 4, Kazipet, Hanumakonda.

¶32

Muddala Prasanna, Wo. Rajesh, aged about 42 yearc, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 1 5-4-149, [Mattewada, Warangal.

¶33

24.Mahibunnisa, W/o. Md. Gafoor Ali, aged about 69 years, Occ. Housewife, R:/o. H.No. 15-4-147, Rajiv Colony, Warangal.

¶34

Vemulapalli Ashok, S/o. Saraiah, aged about 43 years, Occ. Private Employee, Fl/o. H.No. 2-99, Gollawada,Ramachandrapuiam. Mulugu District.

¶35

26.Budime Srikanth, S/o. Rajaiah, aged about 33 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 2-108, Ramachandrapuram Village, Mulugu-District.

¶36

27.Doodam S_atyanarayana, S/o. Ramaswamy, aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-3-67, Skeet No.6, Btiargavi Residency, Fiat No 202, Secunderabad.

¶37

28.Aravapalli Vivek Kumar, S/o. Seetha Ramaiah, Aged about 29 years, Occ Private Employee, Rl/o. H.No.2-5-375, Nakkalagutta, Hanumakondh District.

¶38

29.Aravapalli Vivek Kumar, S/o. Seetha Ramaiah, Aged about 29 years, occ Private Employee, Rl/o. H.No.2-5-375, Nakkalagutta-, Hanumakond-a District.

¶39

...PETITIONERS

¶40

AND

¶41

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar'secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad,

¶42

2 The Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Govemment of Telangana, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶43

J The District Collector, Warangal.

¶44

4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal.

¶45

5 The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Warangal.

¶46

6 The Tahsildar, Geesukonda Mandal, Geesukonda, Warangal District.

¶47

7 The Mandal Surveyor, Geesukonda, Geesukonda Mandal, Warangal District

¶48

8 .9li lt. Ra.njith Kumar, S/o. Laxminarayana, aged Major, Fi/o. Girmajipet Village, Warangal Mandal and Dist.

¶49

...RESPONDENTS

¶50

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ of Mandamus, declaring that the high handed action of the Respondents 4 and 6, at the instance of the 8th respondent, in issuing the Notices dated 31.08.2024 and 03.09.2024 respectively of the 4th respondent to some of the petitioners, proposing to conduct a survey of agriculture land, though the entire land was converted into house plots and houses were constructed much prior to the issuance of Notices to other residents of Sy. Nos. 132t8 and 132lc, situated at Gorrekunta Village, Geesugonda Mandal, warangal District, which is presenfly within the limits of Warangal Municipal Corporation, as illegal, improper, high handed, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of naturaljustice, violative of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and unconstitutional, by holding that the Notices dated 31.08.2024 and 03.0g.2024 issued by the 4th respondent is void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law.

¶51

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶52

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 direct the Respondents 4 and 6 not to demolish the existing structures of the Petitioners or to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners relating to their respective houses, house plots at sy. Nos. 132t8 and 132lc, situated Gorrekunta Village, Geesugonda Mandal, warangal District, pursuant to the Notices dated 31.08.2024 and 03.09.20224 issued by the 4th Respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ petition.

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt K.V.RAJENDRA PRASAD Counsel forthe Respondents No.1to7 : Gp FOR REVENUE -- Counsel forthe Respondents No.g: The Court made the following: ORDER

¶54

ffilv 'Il:lt'-rl7" ,/, I ,// I

¶55

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BIIASKAR^REDDY

¶56

WRIT PETITION No.9931 of 2025

¶57

ORDER:

¶58

This rvrit petition is filed seeking to declare^{the action of} respondent Nos.4 and 6, at the instance of respondent^No.8, in issuing the Notices dated 31.O8.2O24^{and O3.O9.2O24,to} some of the petitioners proposing to conduct^survey of^the agricultural land, though the entire land^{was convertedinto} house plots and houses were constructed much^{prior to the} issuance of the notices to other residents of Sy.Nos.132/8 ald L32 /C, situated at Gorrekunta Village, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District, as iilegal, arbitrarv and^{for other} appropriate reliefs.

¶59

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel^for respective parties and perused the record.

¶60

It is slated that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of various extents of house plots ln Sy.Nos.132/8 and 1321C, situated at Gorrekunta Village, Geesukonda Mandal, having purchased the same through registered sale deeds. It is further stated that the lands in

¶61

¶62

Sy.Nos. 132/8 and l32lC, were converted into nonagricultural lands, about 20 years back and with the prior approval and permission of the competent authority, the petitioners had constructed houses therein. It is further stated that disputing the nature of the said lands of the petitioners and its classihcation, respondent No.8 is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and also made an application dated 31 .O 1.2023 on the hle of respondent No.3 seeking to conduct survey in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.10 gts., in Sy.No.132/A Acting upon the said application, respondent No.S-Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Warangal, has passed an order uide Rc.No.A1/65 12023, dated 27.OI.2O24, wherein, it is categorically stated that the land in Sy.No. 132 is covered with houses, plots, roads, etc., and there is no provision to conduct partly survey in the said land as per the Circular instructions of the Commissioner, Survey Settlement & Land Records, dated 18.O5.201O. The case of the petitioner is that despite the order being passed by respondent No.S rejecting the claim of respondent No.S for conducting survey, at the insta-nce of respondent No.8, the Deputy Inspector of Survey,

¶63

¶64

¶65

Warangal, has issued impugned notices dated 31.08.2O24 and 03.O9.2024, proposing to conduct suwey in Sy.No.132, without mentioning the extent and sub-division numbers. The grievance of the petitioners is that uflder the guise of survey, the offrcials of respondent Nos.4 and 6, along with respondent No.8 are frequently threatening to dispossess them from their respective houses, in the absence of any proceedings from any competent authority. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶66

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that once respondent No.S has passed an order uide Rc.No.Al/65/2023, dated 27.O1.2O24, rejecting the application of respondent No.8 for conducting of survey, the action of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Warangal, in entertaining the applications submitted by respondent No.8 and issuing the impugned Notices is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶67

A careful examination of the order passed by respondent No.5 uide Rc.No.A1/65 12023, dated 22.O1.2024 would reveal that land in Sy.No.132 is covered with houses, plots, roads, etc., and there is no provision to conduct partly

¶68

¶69

survey in the said land as per the Circular instructions of the Commissioner, Survey Settlement & Land Records, dated 18.05.201O. This clearly reflects that the land in Sy.No. 132 is not an agricultural land. Pima facie, it appears from the record that despite the order being passed by respondent No.S, uide Rc.No.A1165 12023, d,ated 27.O7.2024, tlne Deputy Inspector of Survey, Warangal, without taking into consideration of the observations made in the said order, has issued impugned notices dated 31.O8.2O24 and O3.O9.2024, proposing to conduct survey in Sy.No. 132.

¶70

In view of the above, since the impugned notices 3I.Oa.2O24 and 03.O9.2024, proposing to conduct survey in Sy.No. 132, are only show cause notices, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioners to submit a representation/ explanation to the said notices, enclosing all the necessary documents including the orders passed by respondent No.s uide Rc.No.A I /6512023, dated 27.01.2024. In the event of petitioners hling such representation/explanation, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. Until such decision is rendered, ttre

¶71

¶72

respondents are restrained from proceeding with conducting of survey in Sy.No.132 and interfering with the possession of the petitioners, in aly manner, except follou,ing the due process of law

¶73

7 . With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs

¶74

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶75

SD/. MOHD.^ISMAIL DEPUW +EGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECI}AN OFFICER

To,

'l The Princioal Secretary to Government, Revenue^{Department' Dr B'R'} nmOeAfii Secretariat,'saifabad,^{State of Telangana' Hyderaoa0'}

¶80

The Commissioner,^{Survey, Settlement and Land Records' Governmentof} Telangana, Abids,^HYderabad.

¶81

The District^{Collector, Warangal.}

¶82

The Revenue^{DivisionalOfficer, Warangal'}

¶83

The Assistant^{Director, Survey and Land Records' Warangal'}

¶84

6.TheTahsildar,GeesukondaMandal,Geesukonda,WarangalDistrict.

¶85

The Mandal^{Surveyor, Geesukonda, Geesukonda Mandal' Warangal District}

¶86

B. One^{CC to SRI K.V.RAJENDRA PRASAD, Advocate lOPUCl}

¶87

Two CCs to^{GPFOR REVENUE,High Court for the Stateof Telangana'} lourl

10.Two CD CoPies.

BSK

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210412025

ORDER

WP.No.9931 of 2025

1 gE SIAre
<br>c
o -
o 2 0 lllA',{ 2025
.,<br>at
-t
t D i.-S rlAt C$q.0

¶97

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶98

/,/a
LT lrlar'

Gorrepati Mounika, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorrepati Mounika, 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

Dasari Srivani Vs The State of Telangana

Vaggela Pushpa Kumari Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Nambi Hanmamma Vs The State of Telangana

G. Lakshma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

J. Ravinder Rao and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Mohammad Khajabhee Vs State of Telangana