WP/37499/2025 of Gade Laxman Vs Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corpo-Ration (TGIIC), on 13 August 2026

1. Telangana lndustrial lnfrastructure Corpo-Ration (TGllC),, represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, office at 6th Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road, Basheerbagh

2. The Deputy lnspector of Survey (Head Quarter), Survey Settlements and Land Records (SS and LR), Ranga Reddy District

3. The Assistant Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records (SS and LR), Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Regional Deputy Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records (SS and LR), having its office at having its office at Survey Bhavan, Narayanguda, Hyderabad.

5. The Joint Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records (SS and LR), having its office at Survey Bhavan, Narayanguda, Hyderabad.

6. The Survey Settlements and Land Records (SS and LR), represented by its Commissioner.

7. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

8. The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State

9. State of Telangana, represented by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Telangana. '10. M/s. Rajeswari Farms and Estates PW. LTD., represented by D. Suresh Babu, having office at Plot No. 29, Co-Op Housing Society, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad, Telangana-500022. .....RESPONDENTS

Petition Unde. Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one i1 the nature of Writ of I\ilandamus, lvlandamus, (a) declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner in respect of Plot No. 435, admeasuring 500.00 Sq. yards, forming part of land admeasuring Acres 70-00 Guntas, in Survey No.1 007, situated at Kukatpally Revenue Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District under the garb of conducting a purported survey vide notrce bearing Rc. No. 441233912024, dated 28.11.2025 (received on 04.12.2025) as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice, null and void, non-est in the eye of law, and violative of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 10128 of 2018, as well as the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W P. Nos. 23164 of 2021 and 22575 ol 2021 , and Articles 14, '19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently restrain the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner in respect of Plot No. 435, admeasuring 500.00 Sq. yards, forming part of land admeasuring Acres 70-00 Guntas, in Survey No.1007, situated at Kukatpally Revenue Village, Kukatpally I\,4andal, Medchal-lVlalkajgiri District (b) to set aside the impugned notice bearing Rc. No. A41233912024 dated 28.'l 1 .2025 (received on 04.12.2025) issued by Respondent No. 2 and all further action taken in pursuance thereof and consequently Respondents be restrained from taking any action of conducting survey or fixing boundaries in relation to the lands in Survey No, '1007 of Kukatpally Revenue Village. Kukatpally lVandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in any manner whatsoever including but not limited to by placing reliance or considerrng the proceedings bearing No. A5168212010 dated 07-02-2014117.02-2014 (along with sketch issued by the Joint Committee) of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (c) Declaring the action of the Respondents in relying upon the proceedings bearing No. A5168212010 dated 07.02.2014117.02.2014, which were issued without any notice to the Petitioner and in violation of law, to benefit the unofficial Respondent with an intention to crassify the private lands situated in survey No, 1007 of Kukatpally Vi'age and [/andar, Medchar-Markajgiri District, as rands failing under survey No, 4, :i, B,9,41/9,41/10.41,,11 86 41112 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Il R District as iregal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, viorative of the principres of natural justice, null and void, non-est in the eye of law, and violative of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 2O2O in Civil Appeal No. 10'128 ol 2018 and Articles 14. 19,21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the proceedings bearing No. A5t682t2O1O dated o7-02-2014t17-02-2014 (along with sketch issued by the Joint Committee) of the Respondent Nos, 4 and 5. t.A.No.1 0F 2025 Petition Under section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to not interfere in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner in respect of all that Plot No 435' admeasuring 500.00 Sq. yards, forming part of land admeasuring Acres 70-00 Guntas, in Survey No.'1007, situated at Kukatpally Revenue Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District during the subsistence of the status Quo orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 10128 of 2018. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to restrain Respondents from conducting any survey, demarcation, or fixation of boundaries in respect of the lands situated in Survey No. 1007 Kukatpally Revenue Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in view of the order of suspension passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. Nos. 23164 of 2021 and 22575 of 2021 suspending the proceedings bearing No. A5/682/2010 dated 07-02-20141 17-02- 2014 (along with sketch issued by the Joint Committee) of the Respondent Nos 4 and 5. LA.NO:3 OF 2025 Petition Under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay/suspend the impugned survey notice bearing Rc. No. 4412339/2024, dated. 28.11.2025 (received on 04.12.202) issued by the Respondents along with all further action taken by the Respondents in pursuance of the said notice.

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI DHARMESH D.K.JAISWAL Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 9 : SRI P.SREEDHAR REDDY, SpL G.p ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.10 : SRI P.SRI RAGHU RAM The Court made the following ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO. 37499 0F 2025 L3.OA.2026 Between: Gade Laxman And Petitioner Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC), Rep by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director & others Respondents

ORDER:

Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of PIot No. 435, admeasuring 500.00 square yards, forrning part of the land admeasuring Acs. 70 O0 guntas in Survey No. 1OO7 of Kukatpally RevenLre Village, having purchased the same through registered Sale Deed dated 25.07.2011. The plot forms part of the layout of Bharyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited and petitioner ancl 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 3'd respondent

- Assistant Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records had earlier conducl.ed a survcy and prepared a ground sketch uide tile No. A3/ 1185/2005, rlated 15 02.2005, submitted to the

Colle<:tor. Rirnga Reddr- District ujde Ietter dated 16.02.2O05; thcreirfter, a second survev ulde file No. A 1 l223g l2OOg.ln both the sun'c-r-s. it u'as categoncallv concluded that there \l.as no ove rlap ltetu ecn Kukatpalll. and Khanamet Villages and boundarv stones $'cre fixed on the ground in the presence of the Mandal Sun'cr.ors ol Balanagar and Serilin gampally, the Village Secretarir-'s ol both villages and the residents of parvath Nagar. It is contcndr:d, those surveys, having been conducted on [he ground and n,:vcr cluestioned, hold the field. ]r2. It is also contended, under a prlrport(,cl proceedings bearing No. 45i682/2010 dated 07.O2.2O14/17.O2.2Ot4, a Joint Committee comprising the Joint Director anrl the Regional Deput). llirector, Surr.ev Settlements and Land Records, conclucted an alleqed sun e_v from the side of Khanamet Village and rccordcd a fincring rhat parr of Survel Nos. 1OO3 to 1007 of Kukarpallv Villagc overlaps Survey Nos. 4, 5, g, 9, 4l lg, 4l /lO, 41 / l) and .4 I7 l2 ol Khanamct Village. According to petitioner, thts sun cr' \\:,r.s a paper exercise carriecl out without any inspcction on thc gr-ound. behind his back and tlle other plot holders. s ithoutr noticc to them, therefore, it is non est in the e,ye of lau'. 1.3 on lt inr P('ritioner sl.rted that firstly, no notice was served ,rr lllr,,gr,rndUar. L,,, operatire 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. 7 .4. Petitioner has relied upon the order dated

19. O8.2O2O of the Hon'ble Supreme Court irr Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 2O2O in Civil Appeal No. 10128 ot 2018, wherein all the parties were directed to maintain sratus qLo 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 rn Writ Petirion No. 23164 of 2021-, whereby the very

07. O2.2014 l17.O2.2O1,4 \!'ere suspended, wrth a further direction to rcspondcnt aull-rorities no1 to int(rrfere "t'ith the possessior.r of petitioner therein. Petitioner states that despite thc s:rid proceedLngs of 2014 haring been suspended, responclents arc no\l . br,'the impugned notice dated 28.11 2025, onc:r: again seeking lo conduct a sun'ev on the ver]' samc o,,,erlap prcmisc, u hich amounts to overreaching the orders of the Hon'blc Suprcme Court and of this Court.

1.5. Frnalh , pe titioner contends thal Respondent No 2 - r-he Dt'putv lnspccLor rtf Survev (Head Quarter) has no lurisdiction to cotrducl a fresh survev in respect of the very lands lor u.h:c}'r sun'e1' slood concludecl in 2OO5 and 2008 as afores:ric1, zrncl u,hrch thc superior officers (respondent Nos.4 anrl 5) h:rve :rlre:tdr. though r"'rongll', treaLcd as overlapping through the in-rpugncd 201'1 proceedings, and the impugned notice is, in an'n event, \\rithout jurisdiction, arbitrary and violativc ol Arlrcles 11.19.2i and 300-A of the Constitution.

2. This Cotrrt b_v- order dated 05.12 2025 granted ir.ttt rim st:r\' ,f impLrqned notice dated 28.11.2()25 insofar as Su] r.c--r. Nos J I r 9 anri .1 j / l2 of Khanamet Village and since the ord.r pirsst.d t,r,this Courr in Writ petition No, 23,] 64 of 2021 is subsisting, the respondent - authorities are directed not to conduct any survey in respect of Survey Nos. 41/9, 4l/12 of Khanamet Village.

3. Respondent No. I - TGIIC hled counter stating that they hled requisition for acquisition of Government land measuring Acs.2O4-24 Gts. in Survey No. 41/ I of Khanamet Village of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for establishment of Hyderabad Internatronal Exhibition and Convention (HIECON) Centre. The Revenue Authoritics have handed over advance possession lo an extent of Acs.75-00 of land in the said survey number on 12.71.7997. On measuring the land physically, lhe available land was only Acs.6B-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 Iand admeasuring Acs.63 20 gts. and Acs.62-24 gts. situated in Survey No.4 1 / 14 of Khanamet Village from TSIIC (now TGIIC) and HMDA for vrolation of allotment condition uide Memo dated 23.04.2016 and Memo dated 23.O4.2016 respectively. Respondent No. 1, it is stated, 1s no1 in possession of the land in Survey No'41/ 14, Kh:rnamct Vrl iage.

4. Responrlent No. 7 District Collector, Ranga Recicly Districr filecl i:ounler stating that pursuan t to the notice dared 28. tl.2025, in compliance u'ith the comm()n order dated

19. I 1.2025 irr Writ Petitions No 32594 ancl 326O4 of 2025 and thc interim or-der daleci O).12 2025 passed in the presenl u'rit petition. thc Lands in Survey Nos 4, 5' 8' 9' 10' 41110 and ,i 1 ,, I I ol Khanamct Village r', ere survel ed and the boundaries lixed on Ob 1.1.2O25 undcr a panchanama' the lelnds in Survey- Nos. 4119 and 41/12 having been left out in dt:ference to thc rnterim ordel It is asserted that survey was conltned to Khanamet village and it u'as not extendecl to Survey No 1007 of Kukatpzrlh' Vrilage ' r'r I'rich lies u'ithin a different Mandal and Distnct over t hich this respondent has no jurisdi':tion' and that consequentlv no occilsion arose lo put petitioner on notice .:l .1. It is lurther crontended that no reliance u'hatsoever is placcd upon. nor is any reference made to the suspended lrroc't:erLinqs bt-aring No. AS l682 l20lO dated A7.O2.2O11i 17 .O2.2O14 lor the conduct of the survey; survey '..as raken up onlr a r rhe insrance of Respondent No. I0 and prrrsLrant lo [he orders oi this Court in Writ petitton Nos. 4g2 and ) t (, o1. -t025 trncj Wrrt 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 5OO square yards, cannol 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 Eslates Private Limited averring that Respondent No. 10 and others are the absolute owners ofAcs.26.14 guntas in Survey Nos.4,5,8,9, 10 and 4119, 4IllO, 41,/11 and 41/\2 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 Khanamel lands. It is further contended that petitioner is concerned only with his 5OO square yards and not with the larger extents in Survey Nos. 1003 to 1007, and thar, not having been made a party to Writ Petition No. 23 164 of 202 1, Respondent No. 10 is not bound by the orders passed therein.

6. In the repll' filed by petitioner to the counter o[ Rcspondent \o. 7. ir is stated that the assertion that survey il'a s cor rfincd to Kl'ranamet survev numbers is a tnere plav upon labcls. for tl'te ven prcmise on r.l'hich Khanamet boundaries u'erc frxecl orL 06. I 2.202a is the overlap theory propounded in lhe procecdir-Lgs of 20 14 and the necessary ':ffect of fixing Khanantet bouttdaries upon lhat premise is to treat a part of the Iand in Survr:1' No. I OO7 of Kukatpally Village ers belongtng to Khanamet, :herebl rndirectll' diminishing the extent ol petilioner's land. It rs pointed out that on 04 )'2 2025, Lhe officrals. in flact. t:ntered upon the land in Survey No 1007, sen'ed the in:pugr-recl notice al the site, and operly stated that surve\ \1'as tc resoh'e the overlapping showl-r in proceedirrgs No' LS i 682 I 20 10. u'hich belies the plea of u'ant of jr-rrisdiction over Surr er No. 1C07.

6. L P,:titioncr further stated that the distinction f)et\\'ecn :r Di\\'ani Vrllage and a non-Di'"r'ani village is decisive; the rccords of Kuka tpailv Village, being a I)iwani Village sun'evecl llrst u'rth its trar,erse in(lorporated rn its village map, rlr-Lsr prcvail ()\'Ier [h( clefectir,'e non-Dis'ani records of Khanamet Vili:rge. ovcr iar p and the survcvs of 2OO5 and 2008, wtrich found no :rnd pursuan r to u.hich bounda{ stones were fixed, rogcrhcr rr-ith suspension of 2014 proceedrngs by tl.ris Court and the s/afus quo of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, conclusively establish his case.

7. Petitioner also filed reply to the counter affidavit of Respondenl No. 10 pointing out lhat 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 conhned 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 Bhagvanagar 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. [t is also stated, RespondenL 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 i0 produci ol the defecrir,e Khanamet Lraverse. lt is further slated thar non impk:zrdment of Respondent No. 10 in Writ Petition No. 23 1 6.+ of 2021 cloes not exempt it from compliance r,r'ith the ordcrs of status quo, more so ',vhen the impugaed notice was issuecl r:pon its ou n application. Significantly, petitioner has lairll' concedcd Lhat he clalms no right in thc lanrls of Khanamet Villzigc. and :hat a sur\ ev strictly confined to Khranamet Village conducled consisrentlv u'rth the correcL trav(lrse dala and witholrt altering the boundaries of Kukatpally Village or violating the crders ol the Courts, would not be impeded by him ancl it rs rrnl', to the extent that the proposed survel' seeks to disturb Sunev No. 1OO7 and to rest upon :he suspended procecdings ol 201.1 that pelitioner is constrainr:d to approach th is Court.

8. Bv thc mcmo, petitioner has placed on record the [ollou'rnq aclditronal documents in support of his case, namel1',

(i) panch:rna;la in fiLc No. A5/948O/2008 dated 31.05.2011 t'irh irs rran\l:ltion and neat copy; (ii) report cf the Regional Dcputr Director, Survev and Land Records, Hyderabad, in Rc. No. A5/()840i 2011 dated 04.O5.2O12, along with the panchanama ir) r(.spect of the survev conducted in the year 2012-. trr-rci (iii) copr ot. Lhc ordcr dated 22.O2.2C22 passed by this CoLrrt in \[ rjL pctiriorr No. 30773 o{ 2O2L These documents II 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 31.05.201 1, report dated 04.05.20 l2 and the panchanama of the survey of 2012, or the order dated 22.02.2022 in Writ Petition No. 30773 ol 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 ofhcial record of the Survey Department itself, therefore stand wholly unrebutted, and this Court proceeds upon them as such-

10. Srr Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that on five separate occasions spread over two decades, in 2005, 2OO8,2Oll,2072 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 2O05 exercise in lile No. A3/ i 185/2005, and the 20O8 exercise in lrle No. Al 1223812OO8, hxed the village boundary on the ground in the presence of Mandal Surveyors of both

a Baian:rgar and Scrilingampally, Village Secretaries ol both vrllages arrcl the residcnts clf Parvath Nagar, and had any overlap trtilv t'xistcd. the survelor present for Khanamet Village rvould harve objecrecL thert and there, rvhich he did not. ln 20 1 1, under file No. A5/9.180/2008, the stretch bet$'een traverse points 43 and 44 u'as demarcated using Electrontc Total Stations on 28.05.201i, :he points rvere agreed to bv both the parties, and thc panchanama \\'as drau'n on 31.05.2011 In 2012, a lurther sun'e\ covering Survel' No 1OO7 of Kukatpalty Village and Sun,cr No. 11 ol Khanamer Village recorded that from Kukatpalh,tr.rverse point 43 up to traverse point 35, Kukatpally Village bounrlary and Khanamet Village map are tallying, and Khanamct trurversc points do not tally even rvith rhe viliage map ol Khanermet rtsclf. In 2018 in file No. A5/ 1a3/2018, lteld verificatiorr ri ith tippon measurements found the iands in Surr i:-r Nos. I OO3 ro 1 006 ol Kukatpalll Village correct to the grouncl sith no ovcrlap. trach of thesc surveys has attained [inalin, nont havitrq been questioned bl the State in the rranncr knrtu Il trl iau .

10.1. It is also argued, as against the said five consistent grolrnd sLln'er s. stands one solitary paper exercise, proceedings bea ring u hir:h. No. A.> i 682 i 20 1O dated 07 02.20 1,+ / 17.02,2014, \\'rrhorrt no1,ce to a single pattadar or person in li 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 Petilion No. 23164 of 2O2L and in Writ Petition No. 22575 of 202 I, stand declared illegal, bad and against the principles of natural justice by this Court by order dated 22.O2.2022 in Writ Petition No. 30773 ol 2021, and stand disowned by rhe Government itself in the counter filed in the present case. 1O.2. According to learned counsel, the impugned notice overreaches subsisting judicial orders. The Hon,ble Supreme Court, by order dated 79 .O8.2O2O, bound all the parties to status quo as to possession ol the land in Survey No. 1007 and interdicted creation of third party interests, and directed the title suits O.S. Nos. 898 to 90 1 of 2OO I to be decided. A survey whose avowed object, as disclosed by the ofhcials on 04.12.2025, is to resolve the overlapping shown in the suspended 2074 proceedings, so as to enable the l"r respondent to auction lands by treating petitioner,s patta land in Survey No. 1O07 of Kukatpally Village as land falling in Survey No. 41 of Khanamet VilJage, 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.

il 10.3 Learncd counsel submits that, in truth' there is no c>r'erlap on the ground; the alleged overlap is a paper artefact olthc'trar,crscolKhanametVillage,whichthedepartment'sort'n report clatcd 04.05.2012 certifies to be ciefectively prepared' rr'hic:h does not Lallr'cvcn u'ilh Khanamet's on'n viJlage map' and s'hich the 20 14 proceedings themselves admit does not talll' *'ith the vrllage boundarY- of Khanamet The remt:dy prescribed bv that ven' report. namely that the Collector he;lr and resolve the boundary clrspule and send a proposal for correction of the traverse rc'corcls to the Commissioner' Survey Settlement and LandRecords.\[IaSncvercarriedoul,andthereisadmittedly, no clecision of anr Collector to lhis day' A defect in a clepartmental record c:annot be permitted to swallolv the patta lands of cit tzetls, 10.1. It is stLbmitted, the 2Ol4 exerclse I'as a precir'fcrmined di:sk c'xercise Both the report datt:d 04 05 2Ol2 ancl thc proceeclings ol 2Ol4 emanate from t]re very same olliccr. the lhcn Reqional Deputv Direclor' Survey and Land Records. Hvdt rabacl. In 201I and 2Ol2 that officer personally vtsitcd tl,re sitc. conducted surve,vs u'ith EIe clronic Total St.rli()ns in tl.c prcse nce of panchas and found no ovellap, qtra.rifYi'rg th. cliscordance thrown up bv the defective traverse ar Ar.s. .ji3.OO gunras. In 2014, without anv fresh lleld exercise.

t5 without site inspection and without notice, the aileged overlap was inflated lo Acs. 64.16 gts., and no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming as to how lhe extent nearly doubled between 2Ol2 and 2074 al the hands o[ [he same officer on the same record. 10.5 Learned counsel for petitioner also submils 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 KrlshnaJi Ketkar u, Mohamed Haji Latif . The counters are, moreover, wholly silent about the surveys of 2O1l and 2Ol2 and about the fact thal 2014 survey itself was conducted at the behcst of interested parties, amounting to suppression. The State thus holds records wholly in its own favour, namely five consistent surveys and its ou.n certification that Khanamet traverse is defective, yet declines to take advantage of them and instead, ' AIR 1968 sc 1413

t6 supports an ilction \\'hich serves only Respondent No. l0 and the propos<'d auctlon bl the 1'' respondent

11. Sri Pottigari Sreedhar Reedl', learned Special Governmen t Pleadcr appearrng on behalf of leeLrned Advocate Gcner:rl for Responclcnls i Lo 9 submrts thal the lands in Kr-rkatpalll' \'r11agc and Khanamet Village ari distinct and separat(', its '.uc'h. thcre \\as no question of isstting any notice lo petitroncr, sinct' t.to sun'cr is bcing undcrtaken in respect of thc Iancls in Sur','ev No. l OOT The Statc is not interfering with thc possessiort ancl cnloyment of petitioner, and possession of pelitioncr rvoLtlcl I-tot be interfered u'ith, The State does not ciispute lhc ezrrlicr sll rvcvs. 11 1. Reading paragraph 5 of the counter in its entirety, learnecl Spec:al Clor t'rumetlt Pleader highlighteC the specific stzrnd ol'tht: State thrt (i) no reliance is placed upcrn, nor is an,r' refcrcncc lnace Lo Lht' proceedlngs in No Ar l682l2OlO for the conducr of tht'surl'er'. the same having been susllcnded b1'this Court, and (ii) rt:sponrlenls are not relying upon the proceedings in No. A57'b82, 2O I O t2 Srr P Sri Raghurarn, learned Senior Counsel assisrerl br. Sri p. Srjrarn. learned counsel for Respondent No lO a rl va n cr.rl titc lbllorr rng submrssions: (i) rehance \t.as placed upon the decision of this Court rn Boorla Amqrnath u- Stdte of Telangana2 at paragraph 25; (ii) survey being conducted in Khanamet Village is nol 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 characteristrc fairness, stated that he had appeared in the earlier round of that very matter, that a writ petition had then been Illed 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 2Ol4 came into existence in that manner; he then stated, in terms, that Respondent No. 10 is nowhere concerned wilh 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 wrll have t 2020 scc online TS 3517

even- right to object to [hc survey and can take all steps to stop lhe si-rn'r:r' in accorcl:rnce rr-ith lav".

13. In rcplr'. learncd counsel for petitioner pointed olrt that rhr: area of the alleged overlap has, without an1' expJanarion, qror,'n from Acs. 38.00 in the report of 2O12 to Acs' 54.16 gr-rntas in thc impugned proceedings of 2O14'

14. At lhis stage, it is necessary to record a circumstance that has an important bearing rpon the rival contentions. Bv order dated 1'1.O2.2026, this Court had spccificzrlh'dirccted Responden[s 1 to 9 to produce the sltrvel' report said 1() hav( been conducted by thcm' Despite thal clircction and dcsltite the matter having been adjourned from timc to tinre t:rereaftcr, on 18 O2.2026,26.O2 2026, 02 03'2026, 16 03.2026, 17 .O?,.2026, 07 .O4.2026, 28.O4.2026 and

29. O1.2O2o,lhe sur\c)' map and reporL have been \\-ithheld from rhis Courr for rt:asons bcst knorvn to the said respondents' Thc survev map arncl report u'ere the documents that could have denlonsl r:lt( d u'hcthcr thc impugned action dcles or does not rcsl upon the suspencled proceedings oi 2014, that being the ven matter in issue belween the parties. Withholding of lhat doclrmcnl. in thc reerh of an order of this Cour: direCting itS p:q(lLtctlor.t. cornpcls thrs Court to drau.the adverse inference, in tcr-nrs ot thc dcc:isron :n Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar u, 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 nol placed rehance 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. A5/682/2O10 dated 07.02.2014/ 17.02.2014, along uith the sketch issued bA the Joint Commtttee of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, are sustainable rn lana; (ti) Whether the impugned notice beaing Rc. No. 44/ 2339/ 2024 dated 28.11.2025, and the oction taken in pursuance thereof, can be sustained; and

(iii) Whether ang furlher directtons are required to be gtuen to meet the end.s of lustice?

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 hrst place, there is no dispute u'hatsoever as regards tra\'€ ise ltoints 43 and 44. The panchanama dated 31.05.2011 ir-, l'ilc No. A5/9480/2008 records, in lerms' that part of the b, rundarv ll ing betwecll traverse point No 43 and tra\'ersr pornt No. -14 u'as demarcated on 28 t)5 2011 using lllccrronic To al Srations, and that thosc travers;e points were agrecd to b5 t,or h thc parties That demarcation pertained to the strctch zrcij or rting Sun'e1 Village. and [hose S ltrl'ev Nos. 1OO3 to 1006 of KukatPallY Numbers stood conoluded bY the order datccl 2).O).2A22 of this Court in Writ Petitron No 30773 c>f 2O2). and :irc not t hc subject matter of the present petition' Thc lrosition rtf tr:lvct-se points 43 and 44 is therefore, concluded bl agrcemcnt anrl l>1 the said order, and is not in controversy To thc extcnl o[ th,rst: t\\'o points' accordinglv, th(:re is and can be no occasiort for itnt fresh exercise

18. In rhc' second Place, as sterted aforr:me t'rirtne,.l p:rnchanama dated 31 OIl 20 1 1' a surYev was (tondlrcLed from traverse points 43 to Kukatpalh Viilaqe unclcr Lhe cover of panchtrnama and dat('d O+.05.,'O l2 rtas sr-rbmitted br' the Regional in the further of a report Deputy Dirccror to th( Commissioner, Survel' and Settle;nents stating inter alict rhat rlte are:t Of overlap rs corfined to the Segment 11 ing bcru.e. 1ra\-.rse pornr 43 and traverse point 35 and that 2t upon combined plotting of the traverse data of the two villages, the overlap is found to arise in this segment, and that it arises lor a sing.le, identified reason, namely, that the travcrse 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 initrally 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 dala and these points are relaid on ground. The boundary of Kukatpally is tallylng with boundary shown rn vrllage map of Kukatpally and that of Khanamet. Only the village traverse of Khanamet ls not tallying with traverse and village map of Kukatpally ... Hence we can sa], 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 O4.OS.2OI2 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 g to point 1, as 2l againsl Kukalpalh Lraverse points 43 lo 35 do not tally' Khanamct tralers(r points clo not tally even u'ith the village map of Khan:rmct irsclf IL also desen'es [o be noticed that the said report qtlatrtilLed thc overlap throu'n up b1'the delective traverse at Ac:s. 38.00 guntas and rtself prescribed the rernedial course' nanlel.r'.that''heCollcctorhearthecase,resolvetheboundary dispute on facts and evtdence, and send a proposal for correction ()f th(' lravers(l rt:cords of one ol the two villages to the Commissioncr. SLtrvev Settlement and t'and Rer'ords lt is an unclisputecl lact that thr: said course \('as never taken and thal there is no dtcision of an1' Collector to this dav' so that the defcctivc Khanamct tralerse slands uncorrected' POINT No_. (il: l9 lt rs :rgainst this background that validitl' of irnl>ugned procecclings of 20 14 falis to be tested The starting point is re pot.t ol 2i) l2 Respondents have not been ablc to clisiodgc thc [()111(']lLs of rhat report Thc report records three defects in the rec:orci rrf Khanamet Village Firstll" lhe traverse of KhanametVillirgehasnotbeenrelaiduponthevillagemapof Khanamct. ln other t\.ords, the traverse is not shou'n in the villagc map oi lih.lnamet, Secondll', thc traverse boundarv of Khananrt r rs n l talir inq rvith thc vrllage boundary of Khanamet. Thirdl-r. thc r.iLlergc map of Khanamct 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 laken as correct and Khanamet record as incorrec[. Reliance can be placed only upon the survey data of Kukatpally Village and not upon thar of Khanamet Village. The impugned proceedings of 2014, reach a finding of overlap by placing reliance upon the admittedly defective Khanamet record. A surve_y 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 ol 2OI4 has not been lraversed 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 w,ant of notice stands not merely unrebufted but reinforced. Therefore, l,+ this CoLrrt has no hesitation in holding that petitioner and other pal tadars zrnti persot-ts in possession ol lands in Survey No' 1 Oo7 of Kr.tk:r Lpalh Village u'ere not put on notice before those proc:ecclrngs u et e drau n up Further, this Cor-rrt in Writ Petttion No 3077.?, ot 2O2l bv Order daLed' 22 02 2022 follou'ing the luclgmerLt in Sree Pancha Murthg Co-Op' House Building Societg Limited v. Gouernment of A'P'3' State of A'P' v' Sattirajua and Stcrte of A'P' u' Hgderabad' Potteries Pvt' Ltd.shelcilhat:rsurYevconductedbehindth':backofthe patraclars or lhe pcrsons in possession of the land' u'ithout notice 'Lo rhcr:-.. is rloL binding upon them and stands vitiated' Thr' aurh<>riri< s arc legaLIl -bouncl to issue notice to the actual patt.rd.ars and the persons in possession belore conductitrg any sur\'(r\'. The ir''rpr-rgnecl proceedings ol 201'4 were drawn wilhout anlslrchnoticeztnclaretherefore,againsttheprinciplesof natr.lral lustic' lt rs on the sell same ground of q'ant of notice thalthisCourtSlls})endedtheverl'procecdingsbl,itsOrcler datccl 23.09 2021 in Writ Petirron No 23l64 of 2021 A similar ordcr of sltsp,'nsion u'as passcd in Wrrt Pctition No 22575 ol 2021. Bot}'r tlte abr>r e rcfcrred Orders subsist as on date' The infilmirl is comportndccl b,r. a further cirr:umstanue pointed out br, lcarnr:d cor-,,nsei for petrtioner, namelv the survey report of '2O0.) (3) r\LL) 52 t, 20 1 r) (.1) 111-t) l Oi) (.10 I 1)l .') SC( 3t3.1

2Ol2 quantifted 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 gunlas. 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 ol 2Ol2 and impugned survey proceedings of 20 14) emanate from the very same officer, no explanation is forthcoming for the near doubling of the extent. This Court is of the considered view lhat 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 20 14 was conducted without a site inspection and without any satisfactory explanation forthcoming on record merits accepLance. Consequently, the impugned survey of 20l4 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 proceedrngs 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, 2OOa,2OIl,2Ol2 and 2018 stand in contrast and a conjornt readlng of the said surveys secLlres the interest ol the SLate . inasmuch as the reports categoricalll' establish that th€ ov,'rlap is confined to Acs. 38-00 betr,l'een traverse poinls .1.3 to 35 :rs against the extent ol Acs. 64- 16 Guntas mention('d i:r imlrugncd sun'e) proceedings of 2014.Therefore, there rs no orerlap o\(r an extent olAcs. 26 i6 (luntas (i.e. Acs. 6.1 16 Guntzrs minus Acs. 38-00 Guntas). In vi,:u' of lhe same, Acs. 26 16 Ciuntas of Clovcrnment Iand rs free from any issue of overlap, therebl enabling the Government to identify and demarcate its lands (Acres 26- 16 Guntas) in Khanamet Village rr"'rrhin a c1e,rr and dispute fiee frameu.'ork, rvithout trer-rching upon thc privatc lands of Kukatpally Village. lt is difficult to comprehcnd ,,r'h_1 rhe Statc declines to tzrke tldvzLntage of earlier surve\-s ol 2005, 2008. 201 1., '2012 and 2018 which are u'holly in its os'n fi.vour. Tht' proceedings of 2012+ are detrimental lo th(. \,en Stat,' u-hose dcpartment authored them.

22. l'he stand taken by the State itself 1n the present pro<:eeclings, mort: perrticularlf in paragraph 5 of the counter afficlar ir of R,'spondent No. 7 is material to the (rase. The State has catcgoric:rllr staLcd that no reliance is placerl upon, and no r-e1i rt-rrc.r' rs rrracJc lo Lhe proceedings in No A5 t6g2l20i0 fOr rhe c.orrrlLrcr ot'th(, s Lr r_r.e-!. through the impugned surve,\. notlce oi 2O2S. l.he Starr. has fur.ther stated that respondents are not relying upon the said proceedings. The learned Special Government Pleader read over the said paragraph in open Court and reiLerated the said sland at the Bar. The sta[emen[ is made on afhdavit 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 20 14 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 exercis e of 2074 was set in motion at the behest of Respondent No. 10 and that he had appeared in the earlier round in which proceedings of 2OI4 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 impr-rgned survey of 2014. This Court is of lhe considered view that the stand of Respondent No. lO 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 2Ol4 survey. Therefore, it is in the interest of Respondent No. 10 and also consistent wrth the

stand of even' partv bcfore this Court that the 2 0 1 4 impugned survev be set astdc.

24. As noticecl in the preceding paragraphs' lhe additronal documents filed b1' memo i e the panchanama of 20 1 1, rhe repr)rt and panchanama of 2Ol2 and the order in Writ Petition No. 30773 of 2021 drew no repl1' from any respondent' Tht' cor-tnter alliclavit of Respondent No 7/State contains no spccrlic cle:nizrl about the earlier surveys conducted b]' it I-earncd Spt:c,al Government Pleader has expressll' stated that the State docs not dispute the earlier surve)'s 'l'he sun'eys of 2005, 2008. )'O11, 2012 and 2018 therefore, stand admitted' unrebuttecl and have attained finalitl' having never been questionecl in the manncr known to la\""'' lt is clanfied in lairnr:ss to the rccord, that surve]' procecdings of the year 2018 in frle No. A./ i4:,i 2018 have not themselves becn filed by petrtioner. Reli:rcnt:e lo them is drau'n from thr: order dated

22. O2.2022 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3C)773 of 2021. That order rvas passed upon a perusal of the original record produccd beforc the Court and expressly records that field verific:ation of 19.06,2018 \t'ith tippon measurements found the lands c:orret:L ro rhc.ground and disclosed no overlapping. The said ;rrdicial rer.ord h:rs not been disputed by any of the resp()n(lcnts. .lhc solttan exercise of impugned survev proceedings of 2OI4 alone propounds an overlap of Acs. 64-16 guntas, is irreconcilable lr,ith every one of the five surveys of 2005, 2008, 2O1 1, 2012 and 2018.

25. For all the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings bearing No. A5/ 682 / 2010 dated 07.O2.2O14 I 17.O2.2014, 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. tiit:

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. lO placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Boorla Ama.rnath a. State of Telangana to contend lhat a landholder has a statutory right to seek survey and demarcation of his ou,n land. Thar right is not in dispure.

l0 Learncd Seni,-rr Coullsel himsell, u'ith fairness, accepted that in the cas(' of anv or.'erlap/objection, petitioner would have every rigl-rr ro olrjcci to lhi: sun'et'and lo take all steps to stop it in accordance u'ith lau .

28. In vieu of the fair submrssions made across the Bar b1' Ieanted Speclal ()overnment Pleader and learned Senior Corrnsel ancl f indings rendered b1'this Court in setting aside the impugncd survev proceedings of 2014' this Court need not burden itself u'ith going threadbare into the conrentions raised b1,' thc parties, rnorc parlicuiarll' petitioner'

29. Rr-'spondcnl No' 10 is a private party asserting a statLlton' right to har e its or'vn lands sun-e1'ed and demarcated' It- cannot be nrade to suffer the consequences of tlre State's own clelar.rit in dr:lectitelr preparing the traverse of Khanamet Village. It c'qualh cannot be made to suffer for the State having left th.It dr'fecl ltnr:orrccted for u.eIl over a decar:Ie despite the prescripliorl ol its or,r'n report dated 04 05'2O)'2 Respondent No' lOl.rashirrrselllairlrr.oncedeclthatheclaimsnorightinthe lanc1s oi hurk:rtpallr Village He has lurther conceded that a sur'e\ would be strictlv conlined to Khanamet Village' concluctcd on co rre('t bounclarics of Kuka tpa llr Courts. Rcspo:r,:ien: No records and without altering the Village or violarrng the crders of the 10 has pursued its request lor

JI demarcation with diligence and through the process of law. Its Iegitimate expectation of having its lands identrfied 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. lI.2025 shall be permitted to go on subject to the following conditions:

(a) Survey shall be conducred 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 ob..lections 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 ro address petitioner s contention regarding the subsisting slatus quo orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. lt is reiterated that respondents have furnished a categorical undertaking that they would not interfere, in any manner, with the lands situated Krrkatpalll' ''illage, and lhal the sun'ey pursuant to lhe imptigned noticc Khanirmet villagtr 1n surv('v dated 28. ll 2025 u'ou1d be conltned so1ell' to In vicrv ol the said undertaking' and since the village ar.Lthorit ies tire not sun'eying anl land in Kukatpally the ( orrtentron ol the Petitioner that the impugned u oulcl z mollnt to a vrolation of the Status Quo order' IUOT of Kukat Pallv village ' cannol bc accelltccl zrnd is accordingly rejected sun'il\ s'hic h ts tn

Point No. iiil respcct n1 5l.',11'gY No lns (lourt considers it nccessary to record a advatttagt: l athcr than ol grie"'auce The czLrlicr survev reports of 2005, 2008. 2t)1i 2012 and 2018 clearll and consistently state that thcre is no overlapping between the l\.o villages except to clrcLrmsttln(re'r'llich places an crtcnL ol Ai:s the Governnrent ln a position of 1 to 8 of Khanamet 38-00 betrveen Lraverse point Nos 43 to 35 of Kukatpalh Vrl agc ilnci traversc point Nos Vill:rgc. This p()sitiol-t cmanates from Government's ou-n records' It rs sclLtureh btncili:ial to the Government When the cio\ crltnle nt s i)\\ n s''lr\ e\ records clisclose no overlap to the exL( rrl ol Ar:s f6 1rr gs11135, as aforesaid, the Goi'ernment has nottring to gain b\'('nterlng into unnecessary- disputes r,r.'ith the private landowners of Kukatpally Village to the extent of the said Iand 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 Khaname[ Village. They would invite protracted litigation. They would imperil the certainty which its own records presently secure [o 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 Viltage is considered next. Respondenls 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 vi.llage map of Khanamet Village but also with the village map, the village boundary and the traverse ol Kukatpally Village. In doing so, respondents shall follow the remedial course indicated in the report dated 04.05.2012 and the procedure prescribed by lai.r', 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, 2OO8, 2}ll, 2OI2 and 2018. Those surveys already stand concluded and have attained finality. The survey

l.+ authorities shall ecluallt s[and injuncted from reopentng' alterinq or in anr' nranner disturbing the undisputed traverse points 43 anct '14. An1' resun'e1' consequent upon the correction of Khanamet travcrsc shall be con{'ined to the segment i e Acs' 38-OO lvirtg be[s'cen traverse point 43 and 35 of Kukatpally Village corrcsponcling to traverse points 8 to 1 of Khanamet Village as recrrrd.ed irr the panchanama of 2Ol2'

33. 'lto clarLlications are necessan'before the operative (lrr('cLrons ilre set out. Firs[, nothing in this judgment shall cltsrurb.()rb,]COnStrucdtodisturb,anl,existingStructureor ernr subsislinq rc gu larization / ailotmen t of land made by the (iovernmcnt rn th( overlap area This inclucles the lands reli rrcd to ir-, the report dated 04 05 2012 as having been aLllotterl to tht' )rlaltor-tal Academy of Construction' Hyundai and lnvcstigalion AgencY. A11 srrLlc turcs and allorments sur:h subsisting tht' Na tiolla regula rtzat ion s, etc. , ri'hrr1h' ttt-taf'fer:ted llv Lhis judgment Secondly' rleciclcs no (luestion of litle or possesslon as shall rematn this judgment betneen the petrtlol-rt'r, Re spond ent ari lel-t to No. iO or an)' other person All such be adjudicated in lhe aPProPriate clua'sttons procccd i nqs 'l'hc findings recorded herein are c,tnfined to the valic|tr oi rhe rmptrgncd surve,\. proceedings and to the manner To SA

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 Poinr Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii), rhe Writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. No costs.

35. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. SD/'P.PONN/r KRISHNA SISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana lndustrial lnfrastru6ture Corpo-Ration (TGllC), office at 6th Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road, Basheerbagh.

2. The Deputy lnspector of Survey (Head Quarter), Survey Settlements and Land Records (SS and LR), Ranga Reddy District.

3. The Assistant Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records (SS and LR)' Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Regional Deputy Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records (SS and LR), having its office at having its office at Survey Bhavan, Narayanguda, Hyderabad.

5. The Joint Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records (SS and LR), having its office at Survey Bhavan, Narayanguda, Hyderabad.

6. The Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records (SS and LR).

7. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. B. The District Collector, IVledchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State.

9. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana at Secretariat, Telangana.

10. Sri D.Suresh Babu, M/s. Rajeswari Farms and Estates PW. LTD., having office at Plot No. 29, Co-Op Housing Society, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad, Telangana-500022. '1 1 . One CC to SRI DHARMESH D.K.JAISWAL, Advocate [OPUCI

12. One CC to SRI P.SRI RAGHU RAM, Advocate [OPUC]

13. One CC to SRI P.SREEDHAR REDDY, Advocate (OPUC)

14. Two CD Copies TKS

HIGH COURT DATED: 1310812026

ORDER

WP.No.37499 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. .y'-:;a sl ATp ,7^Q, ,,,,,t * i,/q /:) 1 B AUE 2T2 lou 0O b *: t 1}iSPAT cS. .z- ,, \bl \t t I t-