Telangana High Court
N.Bhoom Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 13 April, 2022
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.17274 OF 2021
ORDER :
This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 - the Inspector of Survey, District Survey & Land Records Office, Kamareddy District in not conducting survey and fixing boundary stones in respect of the lands in Survey No.6/1 and 6/8 of Bhiknoor village and Mandal, Kamareddy District, in terms of the notice dated 08.06.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of Survey and Boundaries Act and the rules made thereunder and Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential direction to set aside the impugned Memo in Rc.No.A1/599/2021 dated 28.06.2021.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas in Survey No.6/1 and Ac.0-4.75 guntas in Survey No.6/8 of Bhiknoor village and Mandal, having purchased the same through registered sale deeds bearing document No.5764 of 2019 dated 30.10.2019. The petitioner had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 2 said land since the date of his purchase. However, in view of increase in value of the land and in order to avoid encroachment of the petitioner's land by the neighbours, the petitioner approached the respondents and filed an application dated 31.05.2021 by paying requisite fee/charges for conducting survey, fixing boundaries and erecting boundary stones in respect of his land admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas in Survey No.6/1 and Ac.0-4.75 guntas in Survey No.6/8 of Bhiknoor Village and Mandal.
(i) Pursuant to the application of the petitioner, respondent No.3 issued intimation of survey of land in Survey Nos.6/1 and 6/8 vide File No.A1/599/2021 dated 08.06.2021 fixing the date of survey on 17.06.2021, to all the neighbours and also requested the Mandal Surveyor and Mandal Revenue Inspector to be present on the spot along with Village Naksha (Map) and Pahanies.
(ii) Objections are said to have been filed by respondent No.4 viz., Smt. Tahera Bhanu for the proposed survey. To the knowledge of the petitioner, respondent No.4 claims to be owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0-9.75 guntas in Survey 3 Nos.6/1 and 6/8 of Bhiknoor Village and Mandal. As per sadabainama dated 15.01.1986, husband of respondent No.4 has purchased the land from late Basheer Ahmed. The objection of respondent No.5 is that he is owner of the land admeasuring Ac.0-09.75 guntas and Ac.0-00.25 guntas of land and the same was got surveyed in 2014. He filed a suit against trespassers vide O.S. No.91 of 2021 and obtained injunction order. Further, he infected from corona virus and requested not to demarcate the land in Survey No.6 of Bhiknoor Village.
(iii) The petitioner submits that in view of the purported objections filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, respondent No.3 did not complete survey and it is informed to him by the impugned memo that it is not possible to demarcate the subject lands.
(iv) The petitioner submits that the land admeasuring Ac.0-39 guntas in Survey No.6 is owned by five persons namely (1) G. Laxminarayana (10 guntas), (2) Guduri Lachaiah (4.75 guntas), (3) Lingaiah (4.75 guntas), (4) Basheer Ahmed (9.75 guntas) and (5) Khaleel Ahmed (9.75 guntas). 4
(v) After the death of Basheer Ahmed, his land in Survey No.6/1 admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas and in Survey No.6/9 admeasuring Ac.0-4.75 guntas was succeeded by his two daughters namely Dudekula Shamshad Begum and Shabana and mutated in their name vide Order No.A2/294/2019 dated 30.04.2019 of the Tahsildar. Subsequently, they have alienated the said land in favour of the petitioner through the registered sale deed bearing document No.5764/2019 dated 30.10.2019. Respondent No.4 succeeded to the land of her husband Mr. Kaleed Ahmed for an extent of Ac.0-9.75 guntas and her name is recorded in the revenue records. However, her application for regularisation of the alleged sadabainama was rejected and names of the vendors of the petitioner were mutated in the revenue records.
(vi) Respondent No.5 G. Laxminarayana is owner of the land admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas in Survey No.6. As per the records, the land in Survey No.6 was surveyed in 2014 and boundaries were fixed. However, due to changed circumstances and converting the neighbouring land into non-agricultural land and making layout for house sites, the neighbours removed the 5 boundary stones and encroached the land in Survey No.6. Thus, survey was necessitated in respect of the land in Survey No.6 for the purpose of demarcating the land of the petitioner from other lands by fixing / erecting boundary stones so as to protect the land of the petitioners from the land grabbers or encroachers. The suit in O.S. No.91 of 2021 filed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy filed by respondent No.5 is nothing to do with the survey of the subject lands and the injunction order is against one Ganta Rajaiah who is no way concerned with the subject lands.
(vii) The petitioner submits that merely because respondent Nos.4 and 5 have objected for survey, respondent No.3 could not have refused to conduct survey as there is no restraint order for conducting survey. Thus, action of respondent No.3 is illegal and arbitrary.
3. This Court ordered notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 29.07.2021. The record discloses that notices have been served on respondent Nos.4 and 5. However, both respondent Nos.4 and 5 remained ex parte and did not choose to make their appearance. 6
4. Heard Mr. B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and perused the material on record.
5. By the impugned Memo Rc.No.A1/599/2021 dated 28.06.2021, the petitioner was informed that one Smt. Tahera Bhanu, wife of lat Khaled Ahmed, and one Advocate Mr. T. Raja Gopal Goud filed objection petition in the Court in O.S. No.91 of 2021 and obtained interim orders vide I.A. No.254 of 2021. When the objections dated 18.06.2021 were filed by respondent No.4, it is claimed by her that she is owner of the land in Survey Nos.6/1 and 6/8 for an extent of Ac.0-0975 guntas situated at Bhiknoor Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District. Her husband purchased the said land under sadabinama from his elder brother Mr. Late Basheer Ahmed on 15.01.1986. The patta of the land is in the name of Basheer Ahmed's daughters viz., Mrs. Shamshad Begum and Mrs. Shabana. A complaint was lodged against them in the Mandal Revenue Office with a request to cancel the pattadar pass books and re-issue pattadar pass book and pahanies in the name of respondent No.4. She has filed an application for regularisation of 7 sadabinama. Hence, respondent No.3 was requested not to conduct survey of the subject land.
6. Mr. T. Raja Gopal Goud, Advocate, issued intimation notice on behalf of respondent No.5 viz., Guduri Laxminarayana stating that respondent No.5 is absolute owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.6/AA/4 admeasuring Ac.0-09.75 guntas and 0-0.25 guntas, total Ac.0-10 guntas, which was purchased by him in 1967-68. The pattadar pass books and pahanies were issued in favour of respondent No.5 on 01.05.1994. The land was surveyed on the application of respondent No.5 on 24.02.2014. Panchanama was conducted and land was demarcated by fixing boundaries. When some realtors are trying to grab the land of respondent No.5, he filed a civil suit in O.S. No.91 of 2021 and obtained interim orders vide I.A. No.254 of 2021. One Nagarthi Bhoom Reddy, the petitioner herein, created some fake and fabricated documents in order to grab the land of respondent No.5 and applied for demarcation of the land. Respondent No.5 is infected with corona virus and is in quarantine. In the absence of respondent No.5, if any demarcation is made, it will affect him, as such, requested that 8 demarcation should not be done till disposal of the civil suit and advised the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for necessary relief.
7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, who placed the written instructions on record issued by respondent No.3, has submitted that on receipt of application submitted by the petitioner, records were examined and it was found that sub- division and supplementary sethwar were not done in respect of Survey Nos.6/1 (Ac.00-05 guntas) and 6/8 (Ac.99-4.75 guntas) and as sub-division has not taken place, it is not possible to take measurements of the subject lands of the petitioner. As per paragraph No.5 of the Circular in Rc.No.N2/1741/2010 dated 18.05.2010, sub-division cannot be done. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the circular are extracted hereunder for better understanding:
"5. Outright refection of F-line demarcation petitions in respect of agricultural lands on the ground that sub-division record does not exist would result in undue hardship to the citizens apart from the impropriety of not rendering any worthwhile service in return for the fee collected. 9
6. In view of the above, the following instructions/clarifications are issued for strict compliance by all concerned:
a) F-line petitions/demarcation petitions should not be entertained in respect of village site poramboke except in respect of outer boundary of village site poramboke and sub-divisions created in the village site for public purpose.
b) F-line petitions received in respect of portions of survey fields in agricultural lands should be converted by Tahasildars as applications for sub-division on payment of balance fee payable. If any and sub-division should be done in accordance with BSO 34 A para 13 and in respect of Telangana District in accordance with CSSLR circular Rc.No.N1/1408/07 dt:13-7-2007."
8. The reasons cited by respondent No.3 in the written instructions issued to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue are not the reasons mentioned in the impugned memo refusing to conduct survey on the application of the petitioner. The grounds on which the impugned memo was issued is totally different which demonstrate that the action of respondent No.3 is not fair and 10 apparently for extraneous considerations, the impugned memo was issued.
9. An application for survey cannot be rejected merely because some third parties i.e., neighbours etc., raised objection for such survey. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 claiming independent title over the different parts of the land in Survey No.6; the respondent No.4's case is that her application for regularisation of sadabainama and issuance of pattadar pass books is pending, whereas respondent No.5 objected for survey stating that there is an injunction order passed in I.A. No.254 of 2021 in O.S. No.91 of 2021. Objections of both respondent Nos.4 and 5 are totally irrelevant for the purpose of survey. By conducting survey, respondent No.3 is only demarcating or localising the land. Respondent No.3 is neither deciding title nor possession of the petitioner or respondent Nos.4 and 5. Even if, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have any objection for such survey, they have a remedy under law. Either they can prefer appeal challenging the survey proceedings or approach the competent civil Court. As a matter of fact, respondent No.5 has already approached the civil Court 11 against some third party. There is no restraint order passed by the civil Court against respondent No.3 not to conduct survey. Merely because there is an injunction order in favour of respondent No.5, that would not in any way prevent respondent No.3 from proceeding with the survey pursuant to the notice dated 28.06.2021. So also, objection of respondent No.4 making claim of sadabainama or issuance of pattadar pass book is totally irrelevant for the purpose of survey.
10. As noted above, a new objection is being raised by respondent No.3 in the writ petition which was not raised in the impugned memo. It is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that sub-division and supplementary sethwar are not available and as per paragraph No.5 of the circular, the application of the petitioner was rejected. This Court finds that such contention is totally unwarranted and untenable. On a close scrutiny of the objections of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the circular dated 18.05.2010, this Court finds that there is no bar on respondent No.3 to conduct survey even if sub- division record and supplementary sethwar do not exist. It is 12 clearly pointed out in paragraph No.5 of the circular that outright rejection of F-line application on the ground that sub-division of record is not existing results in undue hardship. In paragraph No.6 instructions / clarifications are issued. As per paragraph 6.b, F-line application received in respect of portions of survey fields in agricultural lands should be converted by Tahsildars as applications for sub-division on payment of balance fee payable and sub-division should be done in accordance with BSO 34 A para 13 and in respect of Telangana Districts in accordance with CSSLR circular Rc.No.N1/1408/07 dated 13.07.2007. Thus, the contention of the learned Assistant Government for Revenue that survey cannot be done for the reason of sub-division records not being available is without any merit. This Court is of the view that the objection of respondent No.3 for conducting survey is on a misreading and misunderstanding of paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the circular dated 18.05.2010.
11. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned memo in Rc.No.A1/599/2021 dated 28.06.2021 is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to conduct survey and demarcation 13 pursuant to the notice dated 08.06.2021 by issuing notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 and all other interested persons / neighbours, in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J April 13, 2022.
PV