Telangana High Court
Ranga Raju Laxman Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 19 August, 2025
1
SK,J
W.P.No.31267 of 2017
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION Nos.31267 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the Memo No.A1/4192/2013 dated 07.05.2015 issued by the respondent No.5 and the inaction on the part of the respondents in updating the survey and revenue records with regard to Mazi No.13/4 of Kongara Khurd (B) Village as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to incorporate on the basis of survey conducted in the year, 1954, necessary changes in all survey and revenue records to replace said Mazi No.13/4 with new Sy.No.449 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-10 gts i.e, Ac.10.39 gts in favour of the petitioner No.1, Sy.No.449 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-11 gts and Sy.No.450 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.11.39 gts in the name of purchasers of the petitioner No.2 situated at Kongara Khurd (B) Village, 2 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without any further delay.
2. Heard Sri V. Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioner No.1 late Venkateshwar Rao was the owner and possessor of agriculture lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13.10 gts in Sy.No.449 and Ac.11.39 gts in Sy.No.450 situated at Kongara Khurd (B) village of erstwhile Ibrahimpatnam Taluq and after formation of Mandals, the village has been allocated to Maheshwaram Revenue Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. He submits that as the said village was un-surveyed, the respondents have roughly noted the lands held by each individual land holder in the village 3 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 and in that process, the lands held by said Late Venkateshwar Rao were noted as No.13/4 known as 'Mazi Number' in all survey records by measuring roughly the extent as 19.00 bigas=Ac.14.10 gts. He submits that in the year, 1954, regular survey was conducted in the entire village, measured all the lands scientifically and assigned regular survey numbers. After survey, the total extent of land in the said Mazi No.13/4 was found to be Ac.25.09 gts and the same was bifurcated into two portions as Ac.13-10 gts and Ac.11.39 gts giving initially two chalta numbers as 47/1 and 47/2 respectively and then assigned two regular survey numbers as Sy.No.449 for the portion of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-10 gts and Sy.No.450 for the portion of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.11.39 gts respectively and all relevant records such as Wasool Baki, Tekha Bandhi, Prathi Book, Mozni plot, Pucca Book, Tippan and Correlation 4 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 statements which are available with the respondents would establish the said fact. He submits that despite the survey conducted in the year, 1954 and Gazette was issued in the year, 1958 giving sanctity to said survey, the revenue authorities have neither incorporated the new Sy.Nos.449 and 450 nor their respective extents Ac.13.10 gts and Ac.11.39 gts in the revenue records and continued the old No.13/4 erroneously in the revenue records.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner No.2 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.14.10 gts from late Venkateshwar Rao and mentioned the very outdated Mazi No.13/4 in the sale deed No.394/1985 dated 28.03.1985. The petitioners have filed a petition on 19.09.2013 before the Commissioner, Survey and Settlement, under Section 87 of AP (Telangana Area) 5 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for Short 'the Act, 1317 Fasli) for incorporation of correct extents with correct survey numbers in the revenue records and the same was rejected by the respondent No.5 vide impugned Memo No.A1/4192/2013 dated 07.05.2015 on technical reasons. He submits that though the respondent authorities have mentioned in the Memo that the survey records of the year, 1954 were not implemented, but no reason was mentioned about non implementation of survey records and the same is unsustainable. He submits that once the survey records were finalized and gezetted, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to update the records incorporating the details in all concerned records and due to incorporation of new survey numbers with respective extents, the petitioners are unable to exercise their rights on the updated extent of their lands and requested to allow the writ petition by directing the 6 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 respondents to incorporate the necessary changes in the revenue records.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, basing on the counter submits that initially in Kongara Khurd Jagir Village, there are total 201 survey numbers with total extent of Ac.1620.14 gts and subsequently survey of the village was conducted in the year, 1954 and survey records have been prepared with total 649 survey numbers with total extent of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3124.26 gts and the revenue records in Kongara Khurd Village have been divided into Kongara Khurd-A, which consists of 400 survey numbers and Kongara Khurd-B village which consists of 74 survey numbers. She submits that the survey and settlement records prepared after revision survey conducted in the year, 1954 were not implemented and the reasons are not known. As per the 7 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 Rules, any survey and settlement records prepared after revision survey should be implemented within a period of two years, otherwise the same will be lapsed and in the present case also, the said records were lapsed and the same cannot be implemented at this juncture. She submits that the names of the petitioners were recorded in the pahani of Kongara Khurd (B) Village against old Sy.No.13/4, however there is no problem to the petitioners for not implementing the revision survey and settlement records prepared in the year, 1954.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that on the petition filed by the petitioners for implementation of survey and settlement records in respect of old Sy.No.13/4 (new Nos.449 and 450) admeasuring Ac.10.39 gts, the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal issued Endorsement No.D/621/2012 dated 12.07.2012 informing that until 8 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 a specific clarification ascertained with regard to the survey settlement aspect, no further stand can be taken.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that the respondent No.5 has issued the impugned memo informing that the petitioners have purchased the land from its previous holder and that the purchaser is not in possession of land in Sy.No.13/4 at the time of resurvey of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.14-10 gts in the year, 1985, but the resurvey was conducted and Gazette was issued in the year, 1954 prior to this transaction and also the re- survey records were not implemented. She further submits that the provision of Section 87 of the Act, 1317 Fasli does not arise since it is not a correction case and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for excess area as claimed by them and they are entitled 9 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 for the extents as recorded in the revenue and survey settlement records. She further submits that the old pattadars of the lands in Kongara Khurd Village have not raised any claims and objections during the year 1955-56 for non-implementation of survey and settlement records prepared in the year, 1954 and moreover, the petitioners are not the original pattadars but they are only the purchasers of the land in Sy.No.13/4 and these petitioners are not concerned with any excess land allegedly purchased by them during the year, 1985 basing on the said survey and settlement records of the year, 1954, which were not implemented and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief sought for and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
8. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner 10 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 No.2 has filed writ affidavit claiming that he has purchased the property from the father of the petitioner No.1 i.e, Ranga Raju Venkateswar Rao through registered document No.394/85 dated 28.03.1985 for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.14-10 gts in Sy.No.13/4. As per the impugned Memo No.A1/4192/2013 dated 07.05.2015, the request of the petitioner No.2 for rectification of area according to resurvey record in respect of Sy.No.13/4 (old) is correlated to Sy.Nos.449 and 450 in resurvey situated at Kongarakhurd Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, was rejected.
9. The contention of the petitioner No.2 is that late Ranga Raju Venkateswar Rao held lands in Mazi No.13/4 in all survey records with roughly measured extent as 19.00 bigas=Ac.14.10 gts and later, in the year, 1954 regular survey was conducted in the entire 11 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 village and measured all the lands scientifically and assigned regular survey numbers. After survey, Mazi No.13/4 was found to be Ac.25.09 gts and the same was bifurcated into two portions as Ac.13-10 gts and Ac.11.39 gts with two chalta numbers as 47/1 and 47/2 respectively and also assigned two regular Survey numbers i.e., Sy.No.449 for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-10 gts and Sy.No.450 for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.11.39 gts. In spite of conducting survey, the respondents have not incorporated new survey numbers such as Sy.Nos.449 and 450 and continuing old No.13/4 erroneously in the records. In view of the same, the petitioner No.2 has made a representation on 19.09.2013 to the Commissioner, Survey and Settlement under Section 87 of the Act, 1317 Fasli seeking incorporation of correct survey numbers in the revenue records and the same was rejected by the respondent No.5 in the impugned 12 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 Memo on the ground that the petitioner has purchased the land from its previous land holder and the purchaser is not in possession of land in Sy.No.13/4 at the time of resurvey and he has purchased Ac.14-10 gts in the year, 1985, but the resurvey was conducted and Gazette was issued in the year 1954 prior to this transaction and also the resurvey records were not implemented and in the instant case, the provision of Section 87 of the Act, 1317 Fasli does not arise since it is not a case of correction of entries.
10. In the instant case, there is no clerical error to correct the entries as per Section 87 of the Act, 1317 Fasli and the contentions raised by the petitioners cannot be treated as clerical error as there is no implementation of survey numbers. Moreover, the survey was conducted in the year, 1954 and the same was not implemented. The pattadars of the village have 13 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 not submitted any representation for implementation of the same and they are enjoining their respective properties since 70 years and now, the petitioners taking advantage of the office note of the respondent authorities want to extend the land.
11. The document filed along with writ affidavit reveals at Page Nos.23 to 25 with regard to the registered sale deed document No.394/85 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam. The said document was executed by Smt Chetkuri Laxmamma w/o.Ramachandra Reddy in favour of Mr. Brother Maurice s/o. Mathew and the petitioner No.2 for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.14-10 gts which is equivalent to 5.77 Hectors in Sy.No.13/4 situated at Kongara Khurd 'B' Village under the Gram Panchayat of Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has 14 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 suppressed the facts by misleading this Court and filed writ affidavit stating that the petitioner No.2 alone has purchased the property from the father of the petitioner No.1 i.e., late Ranga Raju Venkateswar Rao, which amounts to abuse of process of the Court. The petitioner No.2 has made a representation to the authorities for correction of entries as per Section 87 of the Act, 1317 Fasli based on the survey conducted in the year, 1954 for extending the lands from Ac.14.00 gts to Ac.25.00 gts. In fact, the petitioner No.2 has not purchased the land from the said Venkateshwar Rao. Moreover, the petitioner No.2 alone is not the owner of entire property of sale deed in Document No.394/85.
12. There is no dispute with regard to non- implementation of the survey conducted in the year, 1954. Once the survey conducted by the authorities was not implemented, the question of correction of 15 SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017 entries as per Section 87 of the Act, 1317 Fasli does not arise. After conducting survey, the entries were mutated and if there is any mistake in the revenue records, then only Section 87 of the Act, 1317 Fasli will come into force. In the instant case, the petitioners have not filed any document to show that the ancestor of the petitioner No.1 was the owner of the property pertaining to Sy.No.13/4. Moreover, the petitioners have not concerned with any excess land as they have purchased the land in the year,1985. In view of the same, this is a fit case to impose heavy costs on the petitioners, but restrained to do the same and dismissed the writ petition without imposing costs on the petitioners.
13. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
16
SK,J W.P.No.31267 of 2017
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed.
______________________ JUSTICE K. SARATH Date:19.08.2025.
sj