Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 19.11.2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.32604 of 2025, filed by the appellants herein for setting aside the proceedings in Proc.No.A4/2339/2024, dated 22.10.2025, on the file of the respondent No.4/the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District. The appellants/writ petitioners were aggrieved that the proceedings dated 22.10.2025 were issued by the respondent No.4 proposing to conduct a survey and a demarcation of the lands in Survey Nos.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 41/9, 41/10, 41/11 and 41/12, admeasuring Acs.26.14 guntas, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on 29.10.2025, without considering the objections/representations submitted by the writ petitioners on 24.10.2025.

2. W.P.No.32594 of 2025 was also filed for setting aside the very same proceedings dated 22.10.2025. Hence, W.P.No.32594 of 2025 and W.P.No.32604 of 2025 were heard together and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the impugned common order dated 19.11.2025. The present Writ Appeal challenges the impugned order insofar as it relates to W.P.No.32604 of 2025 filed by the appellants/writ petitioners.

3. By the impugned common order dated 19.11.2025, the learned Single Judge heard the appellants/writ petitioners as well as the respondent No.5 (also the respondent No.5 in the Appeal) and disposed of both the Writ Petitions observing that although the Notice dated 22.10.2025 had become infructuous, the State respondents were at liberty to issue a fresh notice to all the concerned parties after considering the objections raised by the writ petitioners, as per the procedure established by law, and the said procedure was directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible, without any further delay.

4. We do not find any basis for the appellants to be aggrieved by the impugned order since the State respondents were only given liberty to conduct a survey by issuing a fresh notice in accordance with law and after considering the objections raised by the appellants.

5. We are informed that the fresh notice has been issued by the State respondents on 28.11.2025 scheduling a survey for tomorrow i.e., 06.12.2025.

6. Strictly speaking, the fresh notice is not part of the cause of action in the present Appeal nor is it part of the papers in this Appeal. Hence, at best, the appellants would have to approach the Court under the law based on the fresh cause of action arising from the Notice dated 28.11.2025. Since that Notice is not before us, we do not wish to injunct the State respondents from conducting the survey scheduled on 06.12.2025.

7. The Court has also been taken through a Common Order passed by another learned Single Judge on 06.10.2025 in W.P.Nos.482 and 519 of 2025 filed by the appellants herein and the writ petitioners in W.P.No.32594 of 2025, respectively, challenging an earlier proceeding in Proc.No.A3/2339/2024 dated 19.12.2024. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, to consider the representation of the respondent No.5 dated 24.09.2024 to demarcate the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas in Survey No.41/12 of Khanamet Village, strictly in accordance with law, by putting the writ petitioners and the respondent No.5 and all interested parties on notice. The Deputy Inspector of Survey was directed to pass a speaking order by assigning reasons, if he was not inclined to accept the request made by the respondent No.5. The Notice dated 22.10.2025 was issued pursuant to the Common Order dated 06.10.2025.

8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State-respondents submits that the State-respondents will consider the representation made by the appellants on 24.10.2025, in the course of the day. We, however, do not find any basis to injunct the State respondents from conducting the survey scheduled for 06.12.2025 nor any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.11.2025. The directions given in the impugned order are innocuous and do not prejudicially affect the appellants/writ petitioners.

9. W.A.No.1399 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that if the State respondents have already disposed of the representation of the appellants dated 24.10.2025, as submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, the decision on such representation shall be communicated to the appellants in the course of the day and before the inspection is conducted. There shall be no order as to costs.