1. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No. 435, admeasuring 500.00 square yards, forming part of the land admeasuring Acs. 70.00 guntas in Survey No. 1007 of Kukatpally Revenue Village, having purchased the same through registered Sale Deed dated 25.07.2011. The plot forms part of the layout of Bhagyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited and petitioner and other plot holders have been in settled and peaceful possession and enjoyment for several decades.

               1.1. It is the case of petitioner that the 3rd respondent - Assistant Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records had earlier conducted a survey and prepared a ground sketch vide file No. A3/1185/2005, dated 15.02.2005, submitted to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide letter dated 16.02.2005; thereafter, a second survey vide file No. A1/2238/2008. In both the surveys, it was categorically concluded that there was no overlap between Kukatpally and Khanamet Villages and boundary stones were fixed on the ground in the presence of the Mandal Surveyors of Balanagar and Serilingampally, the Village Secretaries of both villages and the residents of Parvath Nagar. It is contended, those surveys, having been conducted on the ground and never questioned, hold the field.

               1.2. It is also contended, under a purported proceedings bearing No. A5/682/2010 dated 07.02.2014/17.02.2014, a Joint Committee comprising the Joint Director and the Regional Deputy Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records, conducted an alleged survey from the side of Khanamet Village and recorded a finding that part of Survey Nos. 1003 to 1007 of Kukatpally Village overlaps Survey Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 41/9, 41/10, 41/11 and 41/12 of Khanamet Village. According to petitioner, this survey was a paper exercise carried out without any inspection on the ground, behind his back and the other plot holders, without notice to them, therefore, it is non est in the eye of law.

               1.3. Petitioner stated that firstly, no notice was served on him or Bhagyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, who are the persons in possession; secondly, the proceedings are contrary to the earlier surveys of 2005 and 2008 which confirmed that there was no overlap; thirdly, the impugned survey was prepared relying upon the records of Khanamet Village, which is a non-Diwani village whose village map was prepared in or about 1950 and whose traverse was conducted at a later date but never incorporated in its village map, whereas Kukatpally Village is a Diwani (Khalsa) village which was surveyed first and whose traverse boundary and traverse stations stand incorporated in its village map of 1918, so that the survey and settlement records of Diwani village must prevail; fourthly, Survey and Settlement authorities themselves had found that traverse boundary of Khanamet is defectively prepared and is not tallying with the traverse of Kukatpally Village, which alone has resulted in the so-called overlap, and that on the correct combined plotting of the traverse data, there is, in truth, no overlap between the two villages.

               1.4. Petitioner has relied upon the order dated 19.08.2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 10128 of 2018, wherein all the parties were directed to maintain status quo as to possession and not to create any third party interest in respect of the lands, and the order dated 23.09.2021 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 23164 of 2021, whereby the very proceedings bearing No. A5/682/2010 dated 07.02.2014/17.02.2014 were suspended, with a further direction to respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of petitioner therein. Petitioner states that despite the said proceedings of 2014 having been suspended, respondents are now, by the impugned notice dated 28.11.2025, once again seeking to conduct a survey on the very same overlap premise, which amounts to overreaching the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Court.

               1.5. Finally, petitioner contends that Respondent No. 2 - the Deputy Inspector of Survey (Head Quarter) has no jurisdiction to conduct a fresh survey in respect of the very lands for which survey stood concluded in 2005 and 2008 as aforesaid, and which the superior officers (respondent Nos. 4 and 5) have already, though wrongly, treated as overlapping through the impugned 2014 proceedings, and the impugned notice is, in any event, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution.

2. This Court by order dated 05.12.2025 granted interim stay of impugned notice dated 28.11.2025 insofar as Survey Nos. 41/9 and 41/12 of Khanamet Village and since the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 23164 of 2021 is subsisting, the respondent – authorities are directed not to conduct any survey in respect of Survey Nos. 41/9, 41/12 of Khanamet Village.

3. Respondent No. 1 – TGIIC filed counter stating that they filed requisition for acquisition of Government land measuring Acs.204-24 Gts. in Survey No. 41/1 of Khanamet Village of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for establishment of Hyderabad International Exhibition and Convention (HIECON) Centre. The Revenue Authorities have handed over advance possession to an extent of Acs.75-00 of land in the said survey number on 12.11.1997. On measuring the land physically, the available land was only Acs.68-00 as per the boundaries shown by the Revenue Department. In compliance with the orders of the Government, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, resumed Acs.4-20 gts. from the lands handed over to TGIIC and handed over to the NIA. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department has resumed the Government land admeasuring Acs.63-20 gts. and Acs.62-24 gts. situated in Survey No.41/14 of Khanamet Village from TSIIC (now TGIIC) and HMDA for violation of allotment condition vide Memo dated 23.04.2016 and Memo dated 23.04.2016 respectively. Respondent No. 1, it is stated, is not in possession of the land in Survey No.41/14, Khanamet Village.

4. Respondent No. 7 - District Collector, Ranga Reddy District filed counter stating that pursuant to the notice dated 28.11.2025, in compliance with the common order dated 19.11.2025 in Writ Petitions No. 32594 and 32604 of 2025 and the interim order dated 05.12.2025 passed in the present writ petition, the lands in Survey Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 41/10 and 41/11 of Khanamet Village were surveyed and the boundaries fixed on 06.12.2025 under a panchanama, the lands in Survey Nos. 41/9 and 41/12 having been left out in deference to the interim order. It is asserted that survey was confined to Khanamet village and it was not extended to Survey No. 1007 of Kukatpally Village, which lies within a different Mandal and District over which this respondent has no jurisdiction, and that consequently no occasion arose to put petitioner on notice.

               4.1. It is further contended that no reliance whatsoever is placed upon, nor is any reference made to the suspended proceedings bearing No. A5/682/2010 dated 07.02.2014/17.02.2014 for the conduct of the survey; survey was taken up only at the instance of Respondent No. 10 and pursuant to the orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 482 and 519 of 2025 and Writ Petitions No. 32594 and 32604 of 2025, and that the order of status quo of the Hon’ble Supreme Court operates only inter se the private parties to the suits and does not bind the survey authorities from demarcating the Khanamet lands. It is also stated that petitioner, who claims only 500 square yards, cannot stall the survey of a larger extent and that the other pattadars have never objected.

5. A separate counter-affidavit was filed by Respondent No. 10 - M/s Rajeswari Farms and Estates Private Limited averring that Respondent No. 10 and others are the absolute owners of Acs. 26.14 guntas in Survey Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 41/9, 41/10, 41/11 and 41/12 of Khanamet Village, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds and being in possession since 1995; the survey was sought only in respect of their rightfully owned land in Khanamet Village and not in Kukatpally Village. It is contended, petitioner himself asserts that there is no overlap and that being so, he cannot obstruct the survey of Khanamet lands. It is further contended that petitioner is concerned only with his 500 square yards and not with the larger extents in Survey Nos. 1003 to 1007, and that, not having been made a party to Writ Petition No. 23164 of 2021, Respondent No. 10 is not bound by the orders passed therein.

6. In the reply filed by petitioner to the counter of Respondent No. 7, it is stated that the assertion that survey was confined to Khanamet survey numbers is a mere play upon labels, for the very premise on which Khanamet boundaries were fixed on 06.12.2025 is the overlap theory propounded in the proceedings of 2014, and the necessary effect of fixing Khanamet boundaries upon that premise is to treat a part of the land in Survey No. 1007 of Kukatpally Village as belonging to Khanamet, thereby indirectly diminishing the extent of petitioner’s land. It is pointed out that on 04.12.2025, the officials, in fact, entered upon the land in Survey No. 1007, served the impugned notice at the site, and openly stated that survey was to resolve the overlapping shown in proceedings No. A5/682/2010, which belies the plea of want of jurisdiction over Survey No. 1007.

               6.1. Petitioner further stated that the distinction between a Diwani village and a non-Diwani village is decisive; the records of Kukatpally Village, being a Diwani Village surveyed first with its traverse incorporated in its village map, must prevail over the defective non-Diwani records of Khanamet Village, and the surveys of 2005 and 2008, which found no overlap and pursuant to which boundary stones were fixed, together with suspension of 2014 proceedings by this Court and the status quo of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, conclusively establish his case.

7. Petitioner also filed reply to the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 10 pointing out that while Respondent No. 10 asserts ownership under registered sale deeds with its name mutated in the revenue records, it has not set out the particulars of any such deed nor produced the same. Bare assertion of title in Khanamet Village does not meet and cannot cure the specific and document based grounds urged in the Writ Petition. Petitioner states that the contention that the survey was confined to Khanamet lands is demonstrably incorrect, for the impugned notice issued at the instance of Respondent No. 10 is not a routine demarcation of undisputed Khanamet lands but, on its own terms, summons the adjacent pattadars and interested parties, including the representatives of Bhagyanagar Co-operative Housing Society of Kukatpally Village, and is thus a boundary fixation exercise directed at resolving the very overlap affecting Survey No. 1007, in violation of the orders of status quo.

               7.1. It is also stated, Respondent No. 10’s assertion that petitioner admits that there is no overlap is a misreading of his case; petitioner’s case being that there is no overlap on a correct plotting of the traverse data and appearance of an overlap is the product of the defective Khanamet traverse. It is further stated that non-impleadment of Respondent No. 10 in Writ Petition No. 23164 of 2021 does not exempt it from compliance with the orders of status quo, more so when the impugned notice was issued upon its own application. Significantly, petitioner has fairly conceded that he claims no right in the lands of Khanamet Village, and that a survey strictly confined to Khanamet Village conducted consistently with the correct traverse data and without altering the boundaries of Kukatpally Village or violating the orders of the Courts, would not be impeded by him and it is only to the extent that the proposed survey seeks to disturb Survey No. 1007 and to rest upon the suspended proceedings of 2014 that petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

8. By the memo, petitioner has placed on record the following additional documents in support of his case, namely, (i) panchanama in file No. A5/9480/2008 dated 31.05.2011 with its translation and neat copy; (ii) report of the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, in Rc. No. A5/9840/2011 dated 04.05.2012, along with the panchanama in respect of the survey conducted in the year 2012; and (iii) copy of the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 30773 of 2021. These documents bear directly upon the controversy and are adverted to in the course of the consideration that follows.

9. It is a significant feature of the record that no reply of any nature has been filed by any of the respondents to the said memo, nor has any dispute been raised before this Court as to the genuineness, authenticity or contents of the panchanama dated 31.05.2011, report dated 04.05.2012 and the panchanama of the survey of 2012, or the order dated 22.02.2022 in Writ Petition No. 30773 of 2021. Even the counter filed by Respondents 7 and 10 contain no specific answer whatsoever to these surveys. The said documents, emanating as they do from the official record of the Survey Department itself, therefore stand wholly unrebutted, and this Court proceeds upon them as such.

10. Sri Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that on five separate occasions spread over two decades, in 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2018, the Survey Department went to the ground and found the boundary between Kukatpally Village and Khanamet Village exactly where it has always stood, with no overlap between the two villages. The 2005 exercise in file No. A3/1185/2005, and the 2008 exercise in file No. A1/2238/2008, fixed the village boundary on the ground in the presence of Mandal Surveyors of both Balanagar and Serilingampally, Village Secretaries of both villages and the residents of Parvath Nagar, and had any overlap truly existed, the surveyor present for Khanamet Village would have objected then and there, which he did not. In 2011, under file No. A5/9480/2008, the stretch between traverse points 43 and 44 was demarcated using Electronic Total Stations on 28.05.2011, the points were agreed to by both the parties, and the panchanama was drawn on 31.05.2011. In 2012, a further survey covering Survey No. 1007 of Kukatpally Village and Survey No. 41 of Khanamet Village recorded that from Kukatpally traverse point 43 up to traverse point 35, Kukatpally Village boundary and Khanamet Village map are tallying, and Khanamet traverse points do not tally even with the village map of Khanamet itself. In 2018 in file No. A5/143/2018, field verification with tippon measurements found the lands in Survey Nos. 1003 to 1006 of Kukatpally Village correct to the ground with no overlap. Each of these surveys has attained finality, none having been questioned by the State in the manner known to law.

               10.1. It is also argued, as against the said five consistent ground surveys, stands one solitary paper exercise, proceedings bearing No. A5/682/2010 dated 07.02.2014/17.02.2014, which, without notice to a single pattadar or person in possession and without any site inspection, propounded an overlap of Acs. 64.16 guntas. Those proceedings stand suspended by this Court by orders dated 23.09.2021 in Writ Petition No. 23164 of 2021 and in Writ Petition No. 22575 of 2021, stand declared illegal, bad and against the principles of natural justice by this Court by order dated 22.02.2022 in Writ Petition No. 30773 of 2021, and stand disowned by the Government itself in the counter filed in the present case.

               10.2. According to learned counsel, the impugned notice overreaches subsisting judicial orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 19.08.2020, bound all the parties to status quo as to possession of the land in Survey No. 1007 and interdicted creation of third party interests, and directed the title suits O.S. Nos. 898 to 901 of 2001 to be decided. A survey whose avowed object, as disclosed by the officials on 04.12.2025, is to resolve the overlapping shown in the suspended 2014 proceedings, so as to enable the 1st respondent to auction lands by treating petitioner’s patta land in Survey No. 1007 of Kukatpally Village as land falling in Survey No. 41 of Khanamet Village, is a direct alteration of the status quo. What the respondents cannot do directly, namely act upon the suspended proceedings, they cannot do indirectly under the garb of a fresh survey to implement their conclusions.

               10.3. Learned counsel submits that, in truth, there is no overlap on the ground; the alleged overlap is a paper artefact of the traverse of Khanamet Village, which the department’s own report dated 04.05.2012 certifies to be defectively prepared, which does not tally even with Khanamet’s own village map, and which the 2014 proceedings themselves admit does not tally with the village boundary of Khanamet. The remedy prescribed by that very report, namely that the Collector hear and resolve the boundary dispute and send a proposal for correction of the traverse records to the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, was never carried out, and there is admittedly, no decision of any Collector to this day. A defect in a departmental record cannot be permitted to swallow the patta lands of citizens.

               10.4. It is submitted, the 2014 exercise was a predetermined desk exercise. Both the report dated 04.05.2012 and the proceedings of 2014 emanate from the very same officer, the then Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad. In 2011 and 2012 that officer personally visited the site, conducted surveys with Electronic Total Stations in the presence of panchas and found no overlap, quantifying the discordance thrown up by the defective traverse at Acs. 38.00 guntas. In 2014, without any fresh field exercise, without site inspection and without notice, the alleged overlap was inflated to Acs. 64.16 gts., and no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming as to how the extent nearly doubled between 2012 and 2014 at the hands of the same officer on the same record.

               10.5 Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that respondents’ own stand and conduct destroy the defence. The Government has, in paragraph 5 of the counter of Respondent No. 7, categorically disclaimed reliance upon the 2014 proceedings, yet defends a notice which exists only to resolve the overlap shown in those very proceedings. Respondents have, further, withheld the survey map relating to the survey of 06.12.2025 despite specific directions of this Court, inviting the adverse inference recognised in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif (AIR 1968 SC 1413). The counters are, moreover, wholly silent about the surveys of 2011 and 2012 and about the fact that 2014 survey itself was conducted at the behest of interested parties, amounting to suppression. The State thus holds records wholly in its own favour, namely five consistent surveys and its own certification that Khanamet traverse is defective, yet declines to take advantage of them and instead, supports an action which serves only Respondent No. 10 and the proposed auction by the 1st respondent.

11. Sri Pottigari Sreedhar Reedy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Advocate General for Respondents 1 to 9 submits that the lands in Kukatpally Village and Khanamet Village are distinct and separate, as such, there was no question of issuing any notice to petitioner, since no survey is being undertaken in respect of the lands in Survey No. 1007. The State is not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of petitioner, and possession of petitioner would not be interfered with. The State does not dispute the earlier surveys.

               11.1. Reading paragraph 5 of the counter in its entirety, learned Special Government Pleader highlighted the specific stand of the State that (i) no reliance is placed upon, nor is any reference made to the proceedings in No. A5/682/2010 for the conduct of the survey, the same having been suspended by this Court, and (ii) respondents are not relying upon the proceedings in No. A5/682/2010.

12. Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P. Sriram, learned counsel for Respondent No. 10 advanced the following submissions: (i) reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in Boorla Amarnath v. State of Telangana (2020 SCC OnLine TS 3517) at paragraph 25; (ii) survey being conducted in Khanamet Village is not binding on Kukatpally Village; (iii) the allegation that respondents are interfering with petitioner’s possession is a mere apprehension and is not correct; (iv) Application for survey is founded upon a statutory right, and Respondent No. 10 only seeks demarcation of its own lands, by which petitioner cannot be aggrieved; (v) the prayer in the writ petition as regards interference is without any cause of action; (vi) as regards the proceedings of 2014, learned Senior Counsel, with characteristic fairness, stated that he had appeared in the earlier round of that very matter, that a writ petition had then been filed in which a direction was issued against the Government not to interfere with the survey numbers. Upon violation, a contempt case was filed, in which this Court appointed a Commissioner to conduct survey with the surveyor, and t the report of 2014 came into existence in that manner; he then stated, in terms, that Respondent No. 10 is nowhere concerned with that survey and is not relying upon that survey; (vii) no rights of petitioner will be affected by the survey now sought; and (viii) in case of any overlap, petitioner will have every right to object to the survey and can take all steps to stop the survey in accordance with law.

13. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that the area of the alleged overlap has, without any explanation, grown from Acs. 38.00 in the report of 2012 to Acs. 64.16 guntas in the impugned proceedings of 2014.

14. At this stage, it is necessary to record a circumstance that has an important bearing upon the rival contentions. By order dated 11.02.2026, this Court had specifically directed Respondents 1 to 9 to produce the survey report said to have been conducted by them. Despite that direction and despite the matter having been adjourned from time to time thereafter, on 18.02.2026, 26.02.2026, 02.03.2026, 16.03.2026, 17.03.2026, 07.04.2026, 28.04.2026 and 29.04.2026, the survey map and report have been withheld from this Court for reasons best known to the said respondents. The survey map and report were the documents that could have demonstrated whether the impugned action does or does not rest upon the suspended proceedings of 2014, that being the very matter in issue between the parties. Withholding of that document, in the teeth of an order of this Court directing its production, compels this Court to draw the adverse inference, in terms of the decision in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif that survey record was not produced because, if produced, it would have falsified the stand of Respondents 1 to 9 that they had not placed reliance upon the suspended proceedings of 2014. This Court draws that inference accordingly.

15. Upon a consideration of the rival contentions and the material on record, the following points arise for determination:

               (i) Whether the proceedings bearing No. A5/682/2010 dated 07.02.2014/17.02.2014, along with the sketch issued by the Joint Committee of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, are sustainable in law;

               (ii) Whether the impugned notice bearing Rc. No. A4/2339/2024 dated 28.11.2025, and the action taken in pursuance thereof, can be sustained; and

               (iii) Whether any further directions are required to be given to meet the ends of justice?

16. Before adverting to the merits, it is necessary to delineate the precise area of controversy, for much of the apparent conflict between the parties dissolves once the documents are read together. The dispute is not at large over the whole of the common border between Kukatpally and Khanamet Villages. It is confined to a defined segment of that border, and the material on record, including the documents filed by memo, identifies that segment with precision.

17. In the first place, there is no dispute whatsoever as regards traverse points 43 and 44. The panchanama dated 31.05.2011 in file No. A5/9480/2008 records, in terms, that part of the boundary lying between traverse point No. 43 and traverse point No. 44 was demarcated on 28.05.2011 using Electronic Total Stations, and that those traverse points were agreed to by both the parties. That demarcation pertained to the stretch adjoining Survey Nos. 1003 to 1006 of Kukatpally Village, and those Survey Numbers stood concluded by the order dated 22.02.2022 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 30773 of 2021 and are not the subject matter of the present petition. The position of traverse points 43 and 44 is therefore, concluded by agreement and by the said order, and is not in controversy. To the extent of those two points, accordingly, there is and can be no occasion for any fresh exercise.

18. In the second place, as stated in the aforementioned panchanama dated 31.05.2011, a further survey was conducted from traverse points 43 to 35 of Kukatpally Village under the cover of panchanama and a report dated 04.05.2012 was submitted by the Regional Deputy Director to the Commissioner, Survey and Settlements stating inter alia that the area of overlap is confined to the segment lying between traverse point 43 and traverse point 35 and that upon combined plotting of the traverse data of the two villages, the overlap is found to arise in this segment, and that it arises for a single, identified reason, namely, that the traverse of Khanamet Village has been defectively prepared. The portion of the report dated 04.05.2012 relevant to the present discussion reads as follows:

               “ Kukatpally was initially surveyed in 1299 Fasli and Revision map was published in 1352 Fasli. Hence Kukatpally village is surveyed first … Though Khanamet has traversed the traverse is not shown in the village map of Khanamet … Traverse boundary of Khanamet is defectively prepared and it is not tallying with the traverse of Kukatpally village. This is resulting in overlapping … Kukatpally is khalsa village and it is surveyed first. This map is prepared using traverse data and these points are relaid on ground. The boundary of Kukatpally is tallying with boundary shown in village map of Kukatpally and that of Khanamet. Only the village traverse of Khanamet is not tallying with traverse and village map of Kukatpally … Hence we can say that Khanamet traverse is not correct and appears to have been conducted without following village map.”

The controversy, when reduced to its true dimensions, is therefore a narrow one, confined to the stretch between traverse points 43 and 35, and traceable to the defective Khanamet traverse. As per the panchanama on the basis of which the report of 04.05.2012 came to be given, the overlapping lies between traverse points 43 to 35 of Kukatpally Village as against traverse points 8 to 1 of Khanamet Village. The said panchanama, in terms, records that from Kukatpally traverse point 43 up to traverse point 35 Kukatpally Village boundary and the Khanamet village map are tallying. It is further recorded that Khanamet traverse point 8 to point 1, as against Kukatpally traverse points 43 to 35 do not tally. Khanamet traverse points do not tally even with the village map of Khanamet itself. It also deserves to be noticed that the said report quantified the overlap thrown up by the defective traverse at Acs. 38.00 guntas and itself prescribed the remedial course, namely, that the Collector hear the case, resolve the boundary dispute on facts and evidence, and send a proposal for correction of the traverse records of one of the two villages to the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records. It is an undisputed fact that the said course was never taken and that there is no decision of any Collector to this day, so that the defective Khanamet traverse stands uncorrected.

POINT No. (i):

19. It is against this background that validity of impugned proceedings of 2014 falls to be tested. The starting point is report of 2012. Respondents have not been able to dislodge the contents of that report. The report records three defects in the record of Khanamet Village. Firstly, the traverse of Khanamet Village has not been relaid upon the village map of Khanamet. In other words, the traverse is not shown in the village map of Khanamet. Secondly, the traverse boundary of Khanamet is not tallying with the village boundary of Khanamet. Thirdly, the village map of Khanamet is not tallying with its traverse data. As against this, the very same report records the correctness of the record of Kukatpally Village. The village boundary of Kukatpally is tallying with its traverse boundary. The traverse of Kukatpally has been relaid upon the ground and is found to tally. The report itself concludes that traverse of Khanamet is not correct and appears to have been conducted without following the village map. Kukatpally Village is a Khalsa (Diwani) village, it was surveyed first and its traverse stands incorporated in its village map. For all practical purposes, therefore, Kukatpally record is to be taken as correct and Khanamet record as incorrect. Reliance can be placed only upon the survey data of Kukatpally Village and not upon that of Khanamet Village. The impugned proceedings of 2014, reach a finding of overlap by placing reliance upon the admittedly defective Khanamet record. A survey which rests upon a record condemned by the department itself cannot stand.

20. The categorical assertion of petitioner that no notice was given to him prior to the survey of 2014 has not been traversed as required by law. The record pertaining to issuance of any such notice has also not been placed before this Court by Respondents 1 to 9. Taken with the adverse inference already drawn in preceding paragraph above, the assertion of want of notice stands not merely unrebutted but reinforced. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that petitioner and other pattadars and persons in possession of lands in Survey No. 1007 of Kukatpally Village were not put on notice before those proceedings were drawn up. Further, this Court in Writ Petition No. 30773 of 2021 by Order dated 22.02.2022, following the judgment in Sree Pancha Murthy Co-Op. House Building Society Limited v. Government of A.P. (2000 (3) ALD 520), State of A.P. v. Sattiraju (2015 (3) ALD 106) and State of A.P. v. Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. ((2010) 5 SCC 382) held that a survey conducted behind the back of the pattadars or the persons in possession of the land, without notice to them, is not binding upon them and stands vitiated. The authorities are legally-bound to issue notice to the actual pattadars and the persons in possession before conducting any survey. The impugned proceedings of 2014 were drawn without any such notice and are therefore, against the principles of natural justice. It is on the self same ground of want of notice that this Court suspended the very proceedings by its Order dated 23.09.2021 in Writ Petition No. 23164 of 2021. A similar order of suspension was passed in Writ Petition No. 22575 of 2021. Both the above referred Orders subsist as on date. The infirmity is compounded by a further circumstance pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, namely the survey report of 2012 quantified the overlap thrown up by the defective traverse at Acs. 38.00 and the proceedings of 2014 inflate the alleged overlap to Acs. 64.16 guntas. This Court finds force in the submission advanced by petitioner that no fresh field exercise was undertaken in the interregnum and that when both the survey proceedings (i.e. survey report of 2012 and impugned survey proceedings of 2014) emanate from the very same officer, no explanation is forthcoming for the near doubling of the extent. This Court is of the considered view that the same officer cannot, on the same record, produce two irreconcilable outcomes. In view of the foregoing discussion, the contention of petitioner that the impugned survey of 2014 was conducted without a site inspection and without any satisfactory explanation forthcoming on record merits acceptance. Consequently, the impugned survey of 2014 is rendered arbitrary on the face of the record and cannot be countenanced in law.

21. The necessary effect of the overlap propounded in impugned survey proceedings of 2014 is to show the lands of the State as falling within the private patta lands of Kukatpally Village. The overlap thereby casts a cloud upon the Government’s lands and invites endless litigation. The earlier surveys of 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2018 stand in contrast and a conjoint reading of the said surveys secures the interest of the State, inasmuch as the reports categorically establish that the overlap is confined to Acs. 38-00 between traverse points 43 to 35 as against the extent of Acs. 64-16 Guntas mentioned in impugned survey proceedings of 2014.Therefore, there is no overlap over an extent of Acs. 26-16 Guntas (i.e. Acs. 64-16 Guntas minus Acs. 38-00 Guntas). In view of the same, Acs. 26-16 Guntas of Government land is free from any issue of overlap, thereby enabling the Government to identify and demarcate its lands (Acres 26-16 Guntas) in Khanamet Village within a clear and dispute free framework, without trenching upon the private lands of Kukatpally Village. It is difficult to comprehend why the State declines to take advantage of earlier surveys of 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2018 which are wholly in its own favour. The proceedings of 2014 are detrimental to the very State whose department authored them.

22. The stand taken by the State itself in the present proceedings, more particularly in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 7 is material to the case. The State has categorically stated that no reliance is placed upon, and no reference is made to the proceedings in No. A5/682/2010 for the conduct of the survey through the impugned survey notice of 2025. The State has further stated that respondents are not relying upon the said proceedings. The learned Special Government Pleader read over the said paragraph in open Court and reiterated the said stand at the Bar. The statement is made on affidavit by the District Collector of the State on his behalf and on behalf of the State, binds the State and confirms that the proceedings of 2014 furnish no lawful basis for any action whatsoever. It further confirms that the proceedings ought to be formally effaced from the record so that they are not invoked again.

23. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sri Raghu Ram appearing for Respondent No. 10 fairly informed the Court that the impugned survey exercise of 2014 was set in motion at the behest of Respondent No. 10 and that he had appeared in the earlier round in which proceedings of 2014 came into existence. He then stated in unambiguous terms that Respondent No. 10 is not concerned with the said survey report and is not relying upon the impugned survey of 2014. This Court is of the considered view that the stand of Respondent No. 10 is consistent with his case, in as much as, if the 2014 survey is allowed to stand, the survey through impugned survey notice of 2025 as sought for, Respondent No. 10 cannot go on in the teeth of the impugned 2014 survey. Therefore, it is in the interest of Respondent No. 10 and also consistent with the stand of every party before this Court that the 2014 impugned survey be set aside.

24. As noticed in the preceding paragraphs, the additional documents filed by memo i.e. the panchanama of 2011, the report and panchanama of 2012 and the order in Writ Petition No. 30773 of 2021 drew no reply from any respondent. The counter affidavit of Respondent No. 7/State contains no specific denial about the earlier surveys conducted by it. Learned Special Government Pleader has expressly stated that the State does not dispute the earlier surveys. The surveys of 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2018 therefore, stand admitted, unrebutted and have attained finality having never been questioned in the manner known to law. It is clarified, in fairness to the record, that survey proceedings of the year 2018 in file No. A5/143/2018 have not themselves been filed by petitioner. Reference to them is drawn from the order dated 22.02.2022 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 30773 of 2021. That order was passed upon a perusal of the original record produced before the Court and expressly records that field verification of 19.06.2018 with tippon measurements found the lands correct to the ground and disclosed no overlapping. The said judicial record has not been disputed by any of the respondents. The solitary exercise of impugned survey proceedings of 2014 alone propounds an overlap of Acs. 64-16 guntas, is irreconcilable with every one of the five surveys of 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2018.

25. For all the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings bearing No. A5/682/2010 dated 07.02.2014/17.02.2014, along with the sketch issued by the Joint Committee of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, are held to be illegal, unsustainable in law and are therefore set aside.

Point No. (ii):

26. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the lands of the two villages are distinct and separate, and that no notice was therefore, due to petitioner. This Court places on record the twin statements of learned Special Government Pleader. The first statement is that earlier surveys are borne by record. The second statement is that possession of petitioner would not be interfered with. This Court holds the State to those statements and they shall bind the respondents.

27. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 10 placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Boorla Amarnath v. State of Telangana to contend that a landholder has a statutory right to seek survey and demarcation of his own land. That right is not in dispute. Learned Senior Counsel himself, with fairness, accepted that in the case of any overlap/objection, petitioner would have every right to object to the survey and to take all steps to stop it in accordance with law.

28. In view of the fair submissions made across the Bar by learned Special Government Pleader and learned Senior Counsel and findings rendered by this Court in setting aside the impugned survey proceedings of 2014, this Court need not burden itself with going threadbare into the contentions raised by the parties, more particularly petitioner.

29. Respondent No. 10 is a private party asserting a statutory right to have its own lands surveyed and demarcated. It cannot be made to suffer the consequences of the State’s own default in defectively preparing the traverse of Khanamet Village. It equally cannot be made to suffer for the State having left that defect uncorrected for well over a decade despite the prescription of its own report dated 04.05.2012. Respondent No. 10 has himself fairly conceded that he claims no right in the lands of Kukatpally Village. He has further conceded that a survey would be strictly confined to Khanamet Village, conducted on correct records and without altering the boundaries of Kukatpally Village or violating the orders of the Courts. Respondent No. 10 has pursued its request for demarcation with diligence and through the process of law. Its legitimate expectation of having its lands identified on the ground deserves to be met rather than deferred. This Court accordingly, holds that the survey sought by Respondent No. 10 pursuant to the notice dated 28.11.2025 shall be permitted to go on subject to the following conditions:

               (a) Survey shall be conducted only after putting petitioner and all the interested parties on notice by duly following the procedure prescribed under law.

               (b) Petitioner and all other interested parties shall be at liberty to raise all objections, if any, to the said survey. The survey authorities shall consider the said objections and deal with them in accordance with law.

               (c) While conducting the said survey, respondent authorities shall not rely upon the defective survey records of Khanamet Village and the said survey shall not extend to, or in any manner disturb, the lands in Kukatpally Village.

30. Before parting with this point, it is necessary to address petitioner's contention regarding the subsisting status quo orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is reiterated that respondents have furnished a categorical undertaking that they would not interfere, in any manner, with the lands situated in Kukatpally village, and that the survey pursuant to the impugned notice dated 28.11.2025 would be confined solely to Khanamet village. In view of the said undertaking, and since the survey authorities are not surveying any land in Kukatpally village, the contention of the Petitioner that the impugned survey would amount to a violation of the Status Quo order, which is in respect of Survey No. 1007 of Kukatpally village, cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected.

Point No. (iii)

31. This Court considers it necessary to record a circumstance which places the Government in a position of advantage rather than of grievance. The earlier survey reports of 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2018 clearly and consistently state that there is no overlapping between the two villages except to an extent of Acs. 38-00 between traverse point Nos. 43 to 35 of Kukatpally Village and traverse point Nos. 1 to 8 of Khanamet Village. This position emanates from Government’s own records. It is squarely beneficial to the Government. When the Government’s own survey records disclose no overlap to the extent of Acs. 26-16 guntas, as aforesaid, the Government has nothing to gain by entering into unnecessary disputes with the private landowners of Kukatpally Village to the extent of the said land of Acs. 26-16 guntas. It has, in fact, everything to lose. Such disputes would cast a needless cloud upon the Government’s own land in Khanamet Village. They would invite protracted litigation. They would imperil the certainty which its own records presently secure to it. Adherence to its own surveys costs the Government nothing and protects it entirely. It therefore, protects the interest of the Government no less than that of petitioner.

32. The correction of the traverse of Khanamet Village is considered next. Respondents are at liberty to correct the defective traverse of Khanamet Village. The correction shall ensure that the said traverse is in alignment not only with the village map of Khanamet Village but also with the village map, the village boundary and the traverse of Kukatpally Village. In doing so, respondents shall follow the remedial course indicated in the report dated 04.05.2012 and the procedure prescribed by law, after notice to all the affected parties. An express limitation is also necessary. Even after the said exercise of correction is carried out, the survey authorities shall stand injuncted from reopening, altering or in any manner disturbing the earlier surveys of 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2018. Those surveys already stand concluded and have attained finality. The survey authorities shall equally stand injuncted from reopening, altering or in any manner disturbing the undisputed traverse points 43 and 44. Any resurvey consequent upon the correction of Khanamet traverse shall be confined to the segment i.e. Acs. 38-00 lying between traverse point 43 and 35 of Kukatpally Village corresponding to traverse points 8 to 1 of Khanamet Village as recorded in the panchanama of 2012.

33. Two clarifications are necessary before the operative directions are set out. First, nothing in this judgment shall disturb, or be construed to disturb, any existing structure or any subsisting regularization/allotment of land made by the Government in the overlap area. This includes the lands referred to in the report dated 04.05.2012 as having been allotted to the National Academy of Construction, Hyundai and the National Investigation Agency. All such subsisting regularizations, structures and allotments etc., shall remain wholly unaffected by this judgment. Secondly, this judgment decides no question of title or possession as between the petitioner, Respondent No. 10 or any other person. All such questions are left to be adjudicated in the appropriate proceedings. The findings recorded herein are confined to the validity of the impugned survey proceedings and to the manner and sequence in which the survey and demarcation shall hereafter be undertaken.

34. In the result, in view of the findings rendered in respect of the Point Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii), the Writ Petition is disposed of as indicated above. No costs.

35. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.