The High Court of Telangana has reaffirmed that state authorities cannot initiate land surveys affecting private agricultural holdings without providing prior notice to affected landowners. This ruling underscores the constitutional protection of property rights under Article 300-A and the foundational principle of natural justice, setting a critical precedent for revenue administration across the state.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners are cultivators and landowners holding agricultural land in Survey Numbers 408, 225, 223, 230, 231, 214, 235, 243, 244, 245, 246, 397, 394, 396, 392 and 393 in Mucharla Village, Kandukur Mandal. The Respondents, including the Mandal Surveyor, issued a notice dated 05.01.2026 to conduct a survey to demarcate a footway (Nakshabatta) across these lands, allegedly for public infrastructure purposes. The notice did not provide prior intimation to the petitioners, nor did it afford them an opportunity to be heard.
Procedural History
- 05.01.2026: Impugned survey notice issued by Respondent No.4 without notice to petitioners.
- 09.01.2026: Survey was not conducted as scheduled, despite notice.
- 23.01.2026: A second notice issued proposing survey on 29.01.2026, still without notice to petitioners.
- 28.01.2026: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of the notice and interim stay.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus declaring the survey notice illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14, Article 300-A, and the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. They also prayed for an interim stay on all survey proceedings pending final disposal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 permits revenue authorities to initiate land surveys affecting private agricultural holdings without providing prior notice and opportunity of hearing to affected landowners, and whether such action violates the principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Sri Veera Savan Chakravarthy Dara, Advocate, argued that the impugned notice was issued in complete disregard of natural justice, as no prior intimation was given to the petitioners, who are direct stakeholders. He relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to assert that procedural fairness is an essential component of Article 21 and Article 300-A. He further contended that the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 mandates notice and opportunity to be heard before survey operations, and that the Respondents had failed to comply with even minimal statutory procedure.
For the Respondent
The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue did not dispute the absence of notice but argued that the survey was part of a larger public infrastructure project and that notice would cause delay. He contended that the survey was merely for marking purposes and did not immediately affect title or possession, and therefore, strict adherence to notice requirements was not mandatory.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that notice could be dispensed with on grounds of administrative convenience. It held that Article 300-A protects the right to property against arbitrary state action, and that procedural fairness is not a mere formality but a substantive constitutional requirement. The Court emphasized that even if the survey is preliminary, it triggers legal consequences by initiating a process that may lead to acquisition, restriction, or reclassification of land.
"The right to property under Article 300-A cannot be rendered illusory by procedural arbitrariness. Notice and hearing are not optional embellishments; they are the very essence of lawful authority."
The Court further noted that the petitioners were adjoining landowners whose rights to access, use, and enjoyment of their land were directly implicated. The failure to serve notice on them rendered the entire process ultra vires the Act and constitutionally infirm. The Court distinguished this from routine revenue surveys where public notice is sufficient, noting that here, the survey targeted specific private holdings with direct impact.
The Court also observed that the second notice dated 23.01.2026, issued after the petition was filed, still failed to cure the defect, as it was not served on the petitioners either. This demonstrated a systemic disregard for due process.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that prior notice and opportunity of hearing are mandatory before initiating a survey affecting private agricultural land under the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. The impugned notices were set aside, and all survey proceedings were stayed until the next hearing.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice Is Non-Negotiable in Land Surveys
- Practitioners must challenge any survey notice issued without personal service or publication to affected landowners.
- Revenue departments must now maintain a log of notice issuance and proof of delivery for all survey actions.
- Failure to serve notice renders the survey voidable, even if the underlying project is public-interest oriented.
Article 300-A Elevates Procedural Safeguards
- Any state action that initiates a process leading to deprivation of property must satisfy procedural due process.
- Courts will not accept administrative convenience as justification for bypassing notice requirements.
- Landowners can invoke Article 300-A alongside Article 14 to challenge arbitrary survey notices.
Survey Notices Must Be Specific and Targeted
- Generic notices covering multiple survey numbers without identifying affected parties are legally defective.
- Notices must clearly state the purpose, legal authority, and potential impact on land rights.
- Adjoining landowners must be included in notice lists if their rights are likely to be affected, even if their land is not the direct subject of survey.
