Mahmood Builders Private Limited v. Venkata Upender Reddy

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: HYDERABAD MAIN CASE: W.P. No.17946 of 2025 PROCEEDING SHEET 23.02.2026 CVBR,J 02.

I.A.No.2 of 2025 This application is filed by the petitioner/ respondent No.4 seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17946 of 2025.

2.

The W.P.No.17946 of 2025 was disposed of by this Court on 26.06.2025 with following observations:

"...Having regard to the above, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the 4th respondent-Deputy Inspector of Survey is directed to furnish copies of the survey report dated 19.05.2025 and panchanama and other documents in respect of the subject land within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For dereliction of the duties and non-furnishing of the survey report dated 19.05.2025 and panchanama and other documents and forcing the petitioner to approach this Court for institution of the writ petition, the 4th respondent is liable to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and proof of payment thereof shall be filed before the Registry."

3.

In the present application, it is contended by the petitioner/respondent No.4 that though a survey inspection was undertaken on 19.05.2025, no finalized and authenticated survey report/ panchanama came into existence in accordance with

the relevant survey rules and procedure. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that an endorsement bearing No.G/321/2025, dated 03.06.2025, has been issued and the same has been placed on record.

4.

On the other hand, the respondent herein/writ petitioner opposed the application contending that the survey was in fact conducted and that respondents are bound to furnish the report in terms of the order dated 26.06.2025.

5.

Heard the submissions of Sri Tekuru Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the petitioner herein/respondent No.4, Sri M. Hareesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, and perused the material placed on record, including the endorsement dated 03.06.2025 produced by the petitioner herein. 6.

It is evident that while disposing of the writ petition on 26.06.2025, this Court proceeded on the premise that a survey was conducted on 19.05.2025 and that copies of the survey report and panchanama were not furnished to the petitioner. The direction issued was to furnish copies of the survey report dated 19.05.2025 and connected documents.

7.

Now, the petitioner herein/respondent No.4 has placed on record the endorsement dated 03.06.2025, wherein it is stated that no finalized panchanama/ report was available. In view of this subsequent clarification and the material now placed before this

Court, the direction issued earlier requires suitable modification so as to make it consistent with the record.

8.

Insofar as the costs imposed by the earlier order dated 26.06.2025 are concerned, this Court notes that the same were levied on the premise that there was dereliction of duty in not furnishing an existing survey report and panchanama, thereby compelling the writ petitioner to approach this Court. However, in the present proceedings, respondent No.4 has clarified, on record, that no finalized and authenticated survey report/panchanama had in fact come into existence as on the date of the earlier order, and that only an endorsement dated 03.06.2025 was available on file. The material now placed before this Court indicates that the non-furnishing was not on account of deliberate withholding of any finalized report, but on account of the absence of such finalized record. 9.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the imposition of costs warrants reconsideration. Since the very basis for imposing costs, namely the existence of a finalized survey report that was withheld, does not survive in light of the clarification now placed on record, the ends of justice would be met by recalling the direction relating to payment of costs.

10.

It is well settled that this Court has inherent power to clarify or modify its order to the limited

extent necessary to ensure proper implementation and to avoid ambiguity, particularly when certain factual aspects are subsequently brought on record.

11.

In view of the above, this application is allowed and the operative portion of the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17946 of 2025 is modified and ordered as follows:

"6. Having regard to the above, the respondent No.4 shall furnish to the writ petitioner copies of all records, proceedings, objections received or any other material pertaining to the survey inspection done on 19.05.2025, including endorsement dated 03.06.2025, which are available on file. If no finalized and authenticated survey report/ panchanama is in existence, the respondent No.4 shall clearly communicate the present status of the proceedings and further course of action proposed in accordance with law.

In view of clarification now placed before this Court and the circumstances explained, the costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed in the order dated 26.06.2025 are hereby waived.

7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of."

________ CVBR,J Note:

Registry is directed to return the original record in File No. No.G/321/2025 to the petitioner under proper acknowledgment and to issue corrected copy of the order to the parties. (b/o) scs