Telangana High Court
Padmavathi Colonyii Welfare ... vs The State Of Telangana And 7 Others on 5 June, 2023
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.40165 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
'... issue a Writ of Mandums or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the action of Respondent Nos.4 and 6 in issuing survey notice No.B/1196/2022, dated 22.10.2022 to conduct the illegal survey on 02.11.2022 to demarcation of the land in survey No.253 situated at Murthuzaguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State without there being any right, title or possession by the unofficial Respondent Nos.7 and 8 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.12980 of 2021, dated 16.06.2021 and consequently set aside the survey notice No.B/1196/2022, dated 22.10.2022 and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'
2. Heard Sri L. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and M/s. Indus Law Firm, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 2
3. The Petitioner is the registered association registered under the Societies Act, 2001. The members of the petitioner association are claiming that they have purchased open plots in Sy. Nos. 251 and 252 (Old Sy. Nos.88 and 146), 251/7, 8, 13, 14, 5, 4, 2, 9 & 252/A6, A7, A12, A13, A4, A3, A1, A8 (Old Sy. No.88 and 146/part) and 251 and 252 (old 88) situated at "Padmavathi Colony" Opposite Radha Swami Satsang Ashram, Murthuzaguda grampanchayat, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under different registered sale deeds.
4. According to the petitioner, one K. Sanjeeva Reddy and five others were the absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac. 11.24 guntas in Sy. Nos.251 and 252 (old 88 and 146), 251/7 & 252/A6 (old 88 & 146/part), 251/8 & 252/A7 (old 88 and 146/part) , 251/13 & 252/A12 (old 88 and 146/part), 251/14 & 252/13 (old 88 and 146/part), 251/5 &252/A4 (old 88 and 146/part), 251/4 & 252/A3 (old 88 and 146/part), 251/2 &252/A1 (old 88 and 146/part), 251/9 & 252/8 (old 88 and 146/part) and 251 & 252 (old 88) situated in "Padmavathi Colony" Opposite Radha Swami Satsang Ashram, Murthuzaguda grampanchayat, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They have developed the said land 3 after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities concerned, made the said land into plots and sold it to members of the petitioner association. The layout is called as 'Padmavathi Colony'. From the date of purchase, the members of the petitioner association are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said open plots.
5. On the request made by the respondent No.7, the respondent No.6 had issued notice dated 22.10.2022 proposing to conduct survey in respect of the land in Sy. No. 253 of Murthuzaguda Village, Moinabad Mandal on 02.11.2022. Challenging the said survey notice, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on the following grounds:
i) There is serious dispute with regard to the title of the subject property.
ii) Three suits, vide O.S.No.7 of 2018, O.S. No.707 of 2021 and O.S.No.1710 of 2022 are pending with regard to subject land.4
iii) Out of aforesaid three suits, in two suits the trial Courts granted injunction orders.
iv) The said injunction orders are subsisting and the said three suits are still pending.
v) A Writ Petition vide W.P.No.12980 of 2021 is pending and this Court has granted an interim order.
vi) As there are double registrations in respect of part of the subject property, suppressing the said facts, respondent No.7 sought to conduct survey of the land in Sy. Nos.253 and without considering the said aspects, the respondent No.6 has issued impugned survey notice dated 22.10.2022 fixing the survey on 02.11.2022.
vii) During the pendency of the aforesaid suits and subsistence of the aforesaid injunction orders, respondent No.7 cannot seek to conduct survey and the authorities of Survey and Land Records Department cannot conduct survey.
Therefore, the impugned notice dated 22.10.2022 issued by respondent No.6 at the request made by the respondent No.7 is illegal.
5
6. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have filed counter contending that in respect of survey No.146 of Murthuzaguda Village, the entire extent of land available upto the year 2005 as per the revenue records was Ac.6.00 guntas. In the year 2006 Murthuzaguda Revenue Village was resurveyed. On such resurvey, in respect of Sy. No.146, the land to an extent of Ac.5.10 guntas was found to be in excess. On such survey, Sy. No.146 was reassigned new survey numbers i.e., Sy. No.252 (Ac.2.10 guntas), Sy. No. 253 (Ac.3.11 guntas), Sy. No.254 (Ac.1.36 guntas) and Sy. No.283 (Ac.3.33 guntas). The new survey number 252 was formed by clubbing Sy.No.88/Part (Ac.7.32 guntas) and Sy. No.146/Part (Ac.2.10 guntas) total admeasuring Ac.10.02 gntas.
7. It is further contended by Respondent Nos.7 and 8 that the original pattadars of Sy. No.146 (old) i.e, Sri Narayana and Sri Balayya i.e., sons of Pullaiah have sold the land admeasuring Ac.2.32 guntas to Sri Bangadia Public Charitable Trust represented by its Managing Trustee vide registered sale deed bearing document No.1696/1982 dated 02.03.1982. The other two sons of original pattadar Pullaiah 6 i.e., Lingaiah and Pochaiah have sold the balance extent of Ac.3.33 guntas to Sri Ch. Samuel and Sri Ch. Johnson in the year 1991 vide registered sale deed bearing document No.301/1991 dated 27.02.1991. After resurvey of Murhuzaguda Village, an extent of Ac.5.10 guntas was found in excess of the recorded holding and therefore, the legal heirs of original pattedars were recognized as title holders in respect of the excess extent of land. Accordingly, their names were mutated in the revenue records as pattedars in respect of excess extent of land from the year 2006-07 onwards. The extent of land holding is also specifically mentioned in the Writ affidavit.
8. It is further contended by Respondent Nos.7 and 8 that the legal heirs of original pattedar Pullaiah have sold an extent of Ac.1.36 guntas in sy. No.254 (new) to Sri Ramisetty Mallikarjuna vide sale deed bearing document No.7465/2005 dated 01.09.2005. The balance extent of Ac.3.11 guntas in Sy. No.146 (old), which was reassigned as Sy. No.253 was sold by legal heirs of original pattedar Pullaiah to Sri G. Suresh Kumar and Sri S. Srinivas vide registered sale deed bearing document No.665/2006, dated 19.01.2006, who 7 in turn executed an Agreement of Sale - cum - GPA with possession in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.33 guntas in Sy. No.253
9. It is further contended that Sri Madanlal Kabra has purchased land to an extent of Ac.15.10 guntas in Sy. No.88 (old) of Murthuzaguda Village and the details are also specifically mentioned in the counter affidavit. According to respondent Nos.7 and 8, the land purchased by members of the petitioner association is only Ac.11.24 guntas. Survey numbers were also wrongly mentioned in the sale deeds of members of the petitioner association. Taking advantage of the same, the members of the petitioner association are trying to encroach the land of the respondent Nos.7 and 8 and therefore, they have lodged a complaint with the Police, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.627/2021 and on the complaint lodged by the Police officials, a case in Crime No.642 of 2021 was also registered and both the crimes are pending investigation. Respondent No.6 had issued notice dated 22.10.2022 fixing the survey on 02.11.2022. If the members of the petitioner association are having any objection, they have to submit the same to respondent No.6 at 8 the time of conducting survey and instead of doing so, the members of the petitioner association have filed the present Writ Petition. With the said submissions, respondent Nos.7 and 8 sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.
10. Whereas the learned Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions would submit that one Nalla Jayaram Reddy has filed W.P. No.33032 of 2018 to declare the action of the respondents therein in not conducting survey and demarcation of his land in sy. No.253 (old 146/Part) admeasuring Ac.3.11 guntas with that of neighbouring land in Sy. Nos.251 and 252 (old 88 and 146/part) of Murthuzaguda Village, as illegal. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.09.2018 directing the respondent authorities to consider the said application basing on the circulars on the said aspect. K. Sanjeeva Reddy and five others have preferred Writ Appeal No.887 of 2019 challenging the said order in W.P.No.30332 of 2018 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order 01.12.2021 disposed of the said Writ Appeal permitting the appellants therein to file appropriate objections before the RDO, Ranga Reddy District, who shall consider and proceed with the same in 9 accordance with the law. On the request made by the respondent No.7, the respondent No.6 has issued impugned survey notice by fixing the date of survey as 02.11.2022 and if the members of the petitioner association or any person is aggrieved by the said survey, they can as well submit objections at the time of survey. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. With the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.
11. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there are serious disputes with regard to the title of the subject property. According to the petitioner association, survey No.253 is not in existence. There are double registrations.
12. Perusal of the record also would reveal that one Nalla Jayaram Reddy is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.25 guntas in Sy. No.253/1, Ac.1.26 guntas in Sy. No.253/2 totally admeasuring Ac.3.11 guntas situated in Murthuzaguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.3208 10 of 2018 dated 27.02.2018 executed by Mangali Yadaiah, Mangali Krishna, who are sons of Late Mangali Lingaiah, Mangali Sudhakar, s/o. Mangali Sudhakar and Mangali Narsimha and Mangali Naresh, who are the sons of Mangali Krishna. The said Mangali Yadaiah and others are claiming that it is their ancestral property and also by way of proceedings No.B/1038/2017 dated 06.11.2017 issued by the MRO, Moinabad Mandal i.e., respondent No.5 herein.
13. It is relevant to note that Mangali Yadaiah had executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.3807 of 2021 dated 19.10.2021 in favour of respondent No.8 with regard to land admeasuring Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy. No.253/1 of Murthuzaguda Village. Sri Manali Krishna had executed a registered a sale deed bearing document No.3567 of 2021 dated 08.10.2021 in favour of respondent No.7 with regard to land admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas in Sy. No.253/2 of Murthuzaguda Village. Thus, according to the petitioner, the said Mangali Yadaiah and others have sold the property by way of execution of aforesaid registered sale deeds in favour of Nalla Jayaram Reddy and respondent Nos.7 and 8 and they are double registrations.
11
14. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have filed a suit in O.S.No.707 of 2021 against Nalla Jayaram Reddy and two others seeking perpetual injunction and the said suit is pending. Whereas Mangali Yadaiah and five others represented by their AGPA holder (document No.8622 of 2017 dated 27.11.2017). Nalla Jayaram Reddy has filed a suit in O.S.No.7 of 2018 against Rajesh Kumar Mundra and 10 others seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the very same land i.e., land admeasuring Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy. No.253/1 and land admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas in Sy. No.253/2 total admeasuring Ac.3.11 guntas situated in Murthuzaguda Village.
15. It is relevant to note that the petitioner association has filed a suit in O.S.No. 1710 of 2022 against respondent Nos.7 and 8, Nalla Jayaram Reddy, Mangali Yadaiah and others seeking to declare the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3567/2021, dated 22.10.2021, 3807/2021, dated 03.11.2021, 3208/2018, dated 27.02.2018 and 665/2006, dated 19.01.2006 as illegal and also for perpetual injunction. Learned Special Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 - 12 cum - VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar has granted interim order dated 21.12.2022 in I.A.No.653 of 2022 in O.S.No.1710 of 2022 restraining respondent Nos.7 and 8 and others from alienating or creating charge in respect of the land covered under the aforesaid sale deeds. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said suit is pending and the said interim injunction is subsisting. It is also apt to refer that vide order dated 15.11.2021 learned Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chevella has granted interim injunction in favour of Respondent Nos.7 and 8 against Nalla Jayaram Reddy and two others in I.A.No.1772 of 2021 in O.S.No.707 of 2021. The said suit is pending and said interim injunction is also subsisting.
16. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner association had filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Records in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 challenging the succession proceedings dated 06.11.2017 issued by respondent No.5 in favour of vendors of respondent Nos.7 and 8 and Respondent No.4 vide order dated 11.06.2018 allowed the said appeal and set aside the 13 proceedings dated 06.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the vendors of respondent Nos.7 and 8 have filed revision under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971 and the same was transferred to Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District in terms of Section 16 (1) of ROR Act, 2020, 1971. Vide order dated 05.02.2021, Special Tribunal allowed the said revision. Challenging the said order, a Writ Petition Vide W.P.No.12980 of 2021 was filed and this Court has granted interim suspension of the said order. The said Writ Petition is pending and the said interim order granted by this Court is still subsisting.
17. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is serious dispute with regard to the title of the subject property. The aforesaid three suits are pending. In two suits there are interim injunctions, which are subsisting as on today. The aforesaid interim suspension order granted by this Court is also subsisting. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid M. Yadaiah and others have executed registered sale deeds in favour of Nalla Jayaram Reddy and respondent Nos.7 and 8 and those are double registrations. Therefore, they have filed O.S.No.1710 of 2022 seeking cancellation of aforesaid sale 14 deeds and to declare the same as null and void. The Court below has granted interim injunction directing the respondent Nos.7 and 8 and others not to alienate or encumber and not to change the physical features of the subject property. The said interim injunction is subsisting and the said suit is also pending. In the counter affidavit, it is contended by respondent Nos.7 and 8 that they have applied for survey of the subject land to mitigate the problems and for identification of their properties.
18. During the pendency of the aforesaid suits, the Writ Petition and subsistence of aforesaid injunction orders granted by the trial Court, the respondent Nos.7 and 8 cannot seek to conduct survey for identification of the said property. If identification of the property is required, they have to file proper application in the aforesaid suits seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of identification of the properties and also to conduct survey and it is for the trial Court to consider the said applications filed by the respondent Nos.7 and 8. But they cannot approach the authorities of Survey and Land Records to conduct survey by suppressing the pendency of the aforesaid suits, subsistence 15 of interim orders. The said principle is also laid down by this Court in Dr. M. Satchindananda Rao v. State of Telangana and three others 1
19. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8 have relied upon an order in Sanniboina Veeraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Collector2, wherein referring to the principle laid down in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited vs. Collector, Hyderabad District and another 3, the learned Judge of this Court held that conduct of survey of private lands is permissible. But the facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case. In the present case, there is serious dispute with regard to the title of the subject property. The respondent Nos.7 and 8 having filed suit vide O.S.No.707 of 2021 against Nalla Jayaram Reddy and others seeking perpetual injunction cannot seek conduct of survey from Respondent No.6. Thus, the respondent Nos.7 and 8 cannot pursue parallel remedies. The said principle was also laid down by this Court in 1 W.P.Nos.15349 & 18393 of 2021 dated 20.12.2021 2 W.P.No.91 of 2013 and batch, dated 20.04.2016 3 2001 (3) ALT 200 16 G. Kaushik and another vs. The State of Telangana and four others 4.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 22.10.2022 issued by respondent No.6 proposing to conduct survey of land in Sy. No.253 of Murthuzaguda Village, Moinabad Mandal on 02.11.2022 is set aside. However, liberty is granted to respondent Nos.7 and 8 to file appropriate applications before the Court below in the aforesaid suit seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner and conduct of survey and it is for the trial Court to consider the said application on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 05.06.2023 Note: Issue CC forthwith.
B/o.
AS 4 W.P.No.20595 of 2019 dated 26.07.2021 17 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.40165 OF 2022 05-06-2023 AS