Disposed

Smt. Meka Sushma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2021WP/27454/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner claimed ownership of land whose access was blocked by the 5th respondent via a donka pathway. The Court directed respondents 6 and 7 to conduct a survey to delineate the road's existence and location within three weeks, resolving any access disputes thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 6 and 7 to conduct a survey to delineate the donka road within three weeks.

Smt. Meka Sushma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27454 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner claims ownership of Ac.0.50 cents of land in Sy.No.255/1A of Ponnuru Village, Guntur District having purchased the same by way of a Registered Deed of Sale, dated 17.02.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that access to her land is through a donka pathway in Sy.No.239-1A, but the 4^th respondent has blocked the donka on the complaint made by the 5^th respondent. The 5^th respondent is said to have made a complaint that a road is being formed with a length of 20 feet and 12 feet width in the property of the 5^th respondent to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents in Sy.No.239/1A. The petitioner also contends that the 5^th respondent has placed poles on the existing donka road, to stop the petitioner, and the owners of neighbouring lands from using the said donka road.

¶5

Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel has submitted written instructions obtained from the 5^th respondent. In these written instructions it is stated that there is no such donka road which is going through the property of the 5^th respondent and in fact a vendor of the petitioner and other farmers had made a representation in 2017 to the Commissioner, Endowments, seeking permission to lay a road through a part of the land, owned by the 5^th respondent.

¶6

In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents 6

¶7

¶8

and 7 to conduct a survey and delineate the donka road that is said to be existing in the area. This direction is being given as even the 5^th respondent submits that there is a donka road, but that the said road does not go through the land of the 5^th respondent.

¶9

In the event of the contention of the petitioner being demonstrated by the said survey, the 5^th respondent shall not object the movement of the petitioner personally or for purposes of transporting agricultural produce through the said donka road. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents 6 and 7, within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶11

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

02.12.2021

RJS

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.27454 of 2021

¶17

02.12.2021

¶18

RJS

Smt. Meka Sushma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meka Sushma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yedururu Dhananjaya Achary Vs Yedururu Ravindra Achari

Kothuri Chandra Sekhar Vs M/S Sri Vigneshwara Finance

Shaik Allabakash Vs Shaik Anwar Basha

R Saraswathi Vs v Venkatrao

Pala Somayya Vs Smt. Chellanki Baby Sarojini

Gudala Chiranjivi, Vs Nuli Lakshmi Narayana Family Private Trust