Common Judgment

Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Since the issue involved in these matters is common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment

2. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Muppu Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.562 of 2025, Sri T.Surya Satish, learned counsel appearing for Sri K.Aravind Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in W.A.No.562 of 2025/respondent No.5 in W.P.No.33362 of 2025, and Ms.T.Swetcha, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in W.A.No.562 of 2025/respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.33362 of 2025.

3. Writ Appeal No.562 of 2025 is filed by the appellants/third parties being aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.13462 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, wherein a direction was issued to the respondent No.5 to take up a fresh F-Line application, intimate any further fee required, conduct the survey, demarcation and fixation of boundaries and complete the entire exercise within forty-five (45) working days, while clarifying that no opinion was expressed on title or possession.

4. Writ Petition No.33362 of 2025 is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in issuing the Notice dated 25.10.2025 (Served on 30.10.2025) for conducting the survey on 04.11.2025 over land admeasuring Ac.1.29 guntas, equivalent to 6,243 square yards in Sy.No.82 situated at Jeedimetla Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, without giving opportunity to the petitioners as per Section 15(2) of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and without considering the objections dated 31.10.2025, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to not conduct the survey as per the notice.

5. The brief facts leading to filing of W.P.No.13462 of 2025 are that the petitioner therein, who is respondent No.1 in W.A.No.562 of 2025 and respondent No.5 in W.P.No.33362 of 2025, claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.33 guntas forming part of Sy.No.82/1/EE, situated at Jeedimetla Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same under various registered sale deeds executed during the year 2022 from vendors who acquired title through a partition deed dated 06.07.2015. It is further stated that disputes having arisen with neighbouring pattadars regarding boundaries, the petitioner’s vendors earlier instituted O.S.No.107 of 2016 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, for bare injunction, in which ad-interim injunction was granted vide order dated 29.08.2016 in I.A.No.435 of 2016 and that after purchase, when third parties attempted to interfere with the boundaries, the petitioner filed O.S.No.807 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional Family Court, Medchal, for declaration, which is pending.

6. It is further stated that seeking identification and fixation of boundaries, the petitioner submitted an F-Line application dated 27.05.2024 for survey, demarcation and sub-division; that pursuant thereto, survey was conducted on 07.06.2024 and 08.06.2024 and a report dated 10.06.2024 was submitted; that as no final demarcation or sub-division sketch was issued, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.15310 of 2024, which was withdrawn on the assurance of completion of the process; and that subsequently, the impugned endorsement dated 28.11.2024 was issued rejecting the request for demarcation on the ground that sub-division records were not prepared, leading to file Writ petition No.13462 of 2025.

7. By order dated 29.04.2025, Writ Petition No.13462 of 2025 was disposed of as under:

               “For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit F-line application with the respondent No.4 with a specific request to conduct sub-division survey. On receipt of the said application;

               i) Respondent No.4 is directed to take up F-line application of the petitioner for conducting subdivision survey and demarcation by fixing boundaries of the land to an extent of Ac.0.33 guntas forming part of Sy.No.82/1/EE, situated at Jeedimetla Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

               ii) In case, if respondent No.4 is of the view that sub-division numbers is required to be done and any further fee is required to be paid by the petitioner in terms of the Circulars referred above, the same shall be intimated to the petitioner and on receipt of such intimation, the petitioner shall pay such fee as may be required by respondent No.4.

               iii) On such payment of fee by the petitioner, respondent No.4 shall take further steps for taking up the survey as requested by the petitioner and conclude the same in accordance with law;

               iv) The entire exercise, as directed above, shall be completed within a period of forty five (45) working days from the date of reeeipt of F-Line Application.

               Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the third parties.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants/third parties contended that the appellants are absolute owners and possessors of an extent of Ac.1.29 guntas of land forming part of Sy.No.82 of Jeedimetla Village, having derived title through a valid Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) dated 05.03.1979 issued in favour of the original Inamdar – Sri M.Madan Mohan, and through subsequent registered sale deeds culminating in their purchase.

9. According to the appellants, one Smt.K.Sudhama had created an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 06.03.1980 alleged to be purchased from Sri M.Madan Mohan over the land admeasuring Acs.4.24 guntas in Sy.No.82/E and that based upon the unregistered Agreement of Sale, had fraudulently obtained pattadar passbook and title deeds and made an application dated 25.02.1999 before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for issuance of ORC and that the RDO without considering the previous ORC dated 05.03.1979, had fraudulently issued ORC dated 08.03.1999 in favour of Smt. K.Sudhama. It is further contended that being aggrieved by the said ORC, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri, who in turn set aside the same by order dated 06.03.2018, and therefore any alienations made by her or through her do not confer any valid right, title or interest.

10. The appellants further contended that the K.Sudhama, pursuant to the fraudulent ORC, had executed various Registered Sale deeds alienating those Acs.4.24 guntas in Sy.No.82/E, one of which was executed on 10.03.2015 in favour of respondent No.1 and others alienating land admeasuring 3993 Sq.Yrds. in Sy.No.82/1/E. Subsequently, on 18.05.2024, K. Sudhama along with the said purchasers, visited the appellants’ property, manhandled security guards, demolished sheds, and attempted illegal construction, leading to registration of FIR No.578 of 2024 and W.P.No.13502 of 2024, which is pending.

11. It was further contended by the appellants that in W.P.No.2770 of 2000 filed by K.Sudhama, this Court vide order dated 03.03.2000, directed the authorities to conduct a survey of land admeasuring Acs.4-24 guntas in Sy.No.82, pursuant to which, a survey was conducted on 06.04.2000. Subsequently, respondent No.1 made an application dated 19.05.2024 to fix the boundaries of the same land which was again conducted and respondent No.5 submitted a report before this Court.

12. The learned counsel for appellants would submit that the petitioner in W.P.No.13462 of 2025 obtained the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 for conducting a survey without impleading the appellants in the writ petition as necessary parties, despite the appellants claiming ownership and possession over a substantial portion of the subject land. It is further contended that the subject land has been converted into non-agricultural use and sold in square yards, and therefore the revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to conduct survey and demarcation treating the land as agricultural land.

13. The learned counsel further contend that the impugned survey proceedings and notices were issued without following due process, including non-issuance of notice to all the concerned parties and non-compliance with the conditions prescribed in the relevant circulars governing F-line demarcation.

14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.562 of 2025 contends that respondent No.1 is the lawful purchaser and possessor of an extent of Ac.0.33 guntas in Sy.No.82, having purchased the same under valid registered sale deeds from persons deriving title through Smt.K.Sudhama. Further, Smt.K.Sudhama obtained an ORC dated 08.03.1999 pursuant to an agreement of sale executed by the original Inamdar.

15. The learned counsel further submits that K. Sudhamma filed W.P.No.2770 of 2000 for survey and demarcation of land admeasuring Acs.4.24 guntas falling in Sy.No.82/1 of Jeedimetla Village, which was allowed by order dated 03.03.2000. The Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, had conducted survey and submitted a report vide A5/136/2000. In the said report, an extent of Acs.4.24 guntas of land falling in Sy.No.82/EE was shown in the name of Mr. Madan Mohan.

16. It is contented that Smt.K.Sudhama alienated the entire extent of Acs.4.24 guntas of land in Sy.No.82/EE under various registered sale deeds in favour of third parties. Out of the said extent, the respondent No.1 purchased Ac.0.33 guntas under relevant registered sale deeds, wherein the extent is mentioned in square yards but the land is described as open land and not as plotted land. At the instance of both parties, a survey was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor, Quthbullapur Mandal, on 10.06.2024, and a report was submitted to the Tahsildar stating that an extent of Acs.2.22 guntas was claimed by the respondent No.1.

17. It is further contended that the respondent No.1 submitted an F-Line application seeking demarcation and fixation of boundaries for his land admeasuring Ac.0.33 guntas; that as no action was taken thereon, he filed W.P. No.13462 of 2025, which was allowed by order dated 29.04.2025.

18. It is contended that the land continues to be agricultural land as no conversion proceedings under the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 have been obtained, and therefore the revenue authorities are competent to conduct survey and demarcation.

19. Learned counsel further contends that the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 merely directs consideration of respondent No.1’s application for survey and fixing of boundaries and does not determine title or possession, and hence no prejudice is caused to the appellants.

20. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions of the parties and perused the record.

21. The dispute between the appellants and the respondents essentially pertains to identification, demarcation and fixation of boundaries of land in Sy.No.82 of Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal.

22. The appellants main contention is that the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 was obtained without impleading them, despite their claim of ownership and possession over Ac.1.29 guntas in Sy.No.82, and that the said order enables the revenue authorities to interfere with their possession. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that this Court did not adjudicate upon title, possession, or inter se rights of the parties. The order merely grants liberty to the writ petitioner to submit a fresh F-Line application and directs the competent authority to consider the same and conduct survey and demarcation strictly in accordance with law.

23. It is well settled that proceedings relating to survey, demarcation, and fixation of boundaries are essentially administrative in nature, intended only for identification of land and do not by themselves confer, extinguish or determine title or possession. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the appellants that the impugned order would result in dispossession or adjudication of rights is baseless at this stage.

24. As regards the contention that the land has been converted into non-agricultural use and that the revenue authorities therefore lack jurisdiction to conduct the survey, this Court finds that the revenue records continue to describe the land as agricultural one. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that conversion under the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 has been obtained in respect of the subject land. In the absence of such conversion, the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities to undertake survey and demarcation cannot be questioned.

25. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that interference with the impugned order at this stage would only prolong the boundary dispute and it may result in multiplicity of proceedings. A survey conducted by the competent authority, after issuing notice to all concerned parties and affording them an opportunity to participate, would facilitate proper identification of the land on the ground and sub-serve the interests of justice.

26. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in warranting interference with the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in W.P. No.13462 of 2025.

27. Accordingly, WA.No.562 of 2025 and W.P.No.33362 of 2025, along with all connected applications, are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.