Allowed

Kolli Subhas Chandra Bose at Bose, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jul 2022WP/10104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court allowed the petitioner's claim for a direction to conduct a land survey. The Court held that the survey request did not conflict with a pending related petition seeking only compensation, rejecting the ground of subjudice.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order rejecting the survey application and direct respondents to conduct the survey within six weeks.

Kolli Subhas Chandra Bose at Bose, Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10104 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner contends that he and his brother are owners of various extents of lands in Survey Nos. 281/1, 282/2, 283, 284 and 286/2 of Gandigunta Village, Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by W.P. No.7063 of 2017 with the complaint that the Gram Panchayat Gandigunta had laid a road through an extent of 40 cents of the land belonging to the petitioner and his brother in the above survey Nos. without paying compensation and sought a direction to the 3^rd respondent to pay compensation to the extent of the land on which the Gram Panchayat had laid a road. This Writ Petition is still pending.

¶4

While the said Writ Petition is pending, the petitioner had approached the respondents 2 to 4, by way of F-Line application for survey of the lands belonging to the petitioner for the purposes of demarcating the boundaries of the land belonging to the petitioners and to ascertain the total extent of land which has been occupied by the Gram Panchayat. This application has been rejected on various occasions including on 23.03.2022 by way of proceedings No. R.C.B/95/2022. The application of the petitioner is being rejected, from time to time, on the ground that W.P. No.7063 of 2017 is pending before the Court and the matter is subjudice.

¶5

¶6

The petitioner aggrieved by the said rejection, of this request for conduct of survey, from time to time has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶7

Sri P. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner would take this Court through the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.7063 of 2017, to contend that the relief sought in the earlier Writ Petition is for payment of compensation for the land which has been taken over by the Gram Panchayat. He would further contend that the present Writ Petition is for conduct of a survey to ascertain the extent of land which has been illegally occupied by the Gram Panchayat and as such conduct of survey is not barred on the ground that there is an existing Writ Petition or that the matter is subjudice.

¶8

The learned Government Pleader for revenue submits that in view of the controversy as to whether there has been a road laid by the Gram Panchayat over the land of the petitioner, it would not be appropriate for a survey to be conducted as the said issue is already pending before this Court, by way of W.P.No.7063 of 2017.

¶9

A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.7063 of 2017 would clearly show that the said Writ Petition is restricted to the issue of payment of compensation on the ground that the land of the petitioner has been illegally occupied by the Gram Panchayat. The relief sought in the present Writ Petition is for a direction to the respondents to conduct the survey in accordance with the request of the petitioner. In view of the above, it is clear that conduct of

¶10

¶11

survey of the lands of the petitioner, as requested by the petitioner, would not in any manner conflict with the relief that might arise in W.P.No.7063 of 2017.

¶12

In the circumstances, the rejection of the application of the petitioner for conduct of survey, by the 3^rd respondent is clearly untenable and has to be set aside.

¶13

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the endorsement of the 3^rd respondent bearing No.R.C.B/95/2022 dated 23.02.2022 with a further direction to the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to conduct the survey requested by the petitioner within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order after due notice to the petitioner and the neighboring owners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶15

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶16

Date:20.07.2022 MJA

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.10104 of 2022

¶20

Date:20.07.2022

¶21

MJA

Kolli Subhas Chandra Bose at Bose, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolli Subhas Chandra Bose at Bose, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayacut Dar Committee Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E. Sujatha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mannuru Anil Kumar Reddy Vs Union of India

Vuyyuru Borra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.Likhil Kumar Vs M/s.Vystar Enbterprises

Ramayanam Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh