The State cannot impeach a survey report conducted by its own officials if it failed to challenge such report within a reasonable time, and the implementation of such a survey report for the purpose of physical identification (peg-marking) does not extinguish the State's right to claim title to the land.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 02.06.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, as His Lordship then was, in W.P.No.26495 of 2011.

2. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.26495 of 2011 seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the failure of the appellants, namely, the District Collector, Hyderabad, the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad, in amending the concerned Revenue and Survey Records by recording the petitioner’s name, in compliance with the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3766 of 1997 and affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.435 of 1997. The writ petitioner also challenged the appellants’ failure to conduct peg-marking on the writ petitioner’s land, admeasuring 6403 square meters in Survey No.144, corresponding to TSLR No.12/1 of Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. By the impugned order dated 02.06.2017, the learned Single Judge allowed W.P.No.26495 of 2011 filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and directed the appellants/State of Telangana to amend the concerned Revenue and Survey Records by recording the name of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge further directed the appellants to put peg-marks on the writ petitioner’s land as per the Survey Report of the respondent No.2/Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad (appellant No.2 herein) dated 05.09.2009 forthwith.

4. Several Writ Petitions were disposed of by the impugned Common Order. The present Writ Appeal challenges the impugned Common Order insofar as it relates to W.P.No.26495 of 2011 filed by the respondent No.1.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants argues that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner played fraud on the Court by misrepresenting the facts. It is contended that the petitioner’s entire claim is based on a Certificate of Sale dated 22.04.1991 for an extent of Acs.3-37 guntas of land in Survey No.129/71 and that the petitioner is mischievously claiming Acs.6-37 guntas in the same Survey Number without any documentary evidence. It is also contended that the petitioner sold the entire Acs.3-37 guntas of land in Survey No.144 to one RVS Chowdary under a Sale Deed vide document No.1192 of 1962, thereby extinguishing the petitioner’s title. The Special Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner concealed this alienation from the Writ Court and that the Surveyor submitted a false Report without any authority or direction from the Court. It is also argued that the petitioner is attempting to grab the land belonging to the Government since the property surveyed forms part of Survey No.403.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner places relevant paragraphs from the counter-affidavit filed by the appellants to the Writ Petition averring that ‘the Court may pass such other orders as it deems fit and proper and in the interest of justice’. Senior Counsel submits that this averment shows that the appellants are not ser