Disposed

K.Kesavaraju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Nov 2022WP/3289/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants a limited relief in a land dispute. The High Court instructs the 4th respondent to review the petitioner's representations concerning a blocked cart track on agricultural land and decide the matter within four weeks, avoiding a full trial on merits.

What did the court decide?

Ordering the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representations of 14.07.2014 and 18.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

K.Kesavaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.3289 of 2017

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 14.07.2014 and 18.11.2016 for maintaining cart-track as shown in R.K.V.B. Peta village fields, Karvetinagaram Mandal, Chittoor District as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.”

¶6

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.00 cents and house situated in Survey No.5/2, R.K.V.B. Peta village. He was also owner of the land situated in Survey No.3/1, Punja, in R.K.V.B. Peta village, having enjoyed the same along with brothers. In between their lands in Survey No.3/1 and in survey No.5/2, there is cart track leading from Survey No.4/4 and they are enjoying the said carttrack without any hindrance. While so, the then Tahsildar

VS, J

W.P.No.3289 of 2017

issued DKT patta in favour of mother of the 5^th respondent and issued pattadar pass books for the land an extent of Ac.2.51 cents in Survey No.4/6 and an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Survey No.4/8. However, the 5^th respondent is causing obstruction to the petitioner for using the cart track as shown in FMB, contrary to condition No.6 of the D-Form patta, which speaks that they should not disturb the existing lands, canals and agricultural channels. The petitioner is using the said cart track for transporting their agricultural products. When the 5^th respondent is causing obstruction to the enjoyment of the said cart-track, the petitioner made several complaints to the respondent authorities, but they did not take any action. The grievance of the petitioner is that taking advantage of inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the 5^th respondent is causing obstruction for their ingress and egress to reach the lands. Though the petitioner made a complaint to the respondent authorities, they did not take any action. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

VS, J

W.P.No.3289 of 2017

The 4^th respondent filed his counter contending, inter

¶15

alia , that land an extent of Ac.2.51 cents situated in Survey No.4/6 and an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Survey No.4/8 were assigned to one Gnanamma, mother of the 5^th respondent, with a condition that the physical features of the land i.e. cart-track, channels etc., should not be changed. But, the 5^th respondent in violation of the conditions of D-Form patta made changes to the existing path way. Further, the 4^th respondent is trying to close the existing foot path. The petitioner is not utilising the said cart track due to the obstruction of the 5^th respondent and that necessary is being taken to provide cart track to the petitioner.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above and considering the contentions of the 4^th respondent, without going into the merits of the case, this court is inclined to direct the 4^th respondent to consider

VS, J

W.P.No.3289 of 2017

the representations dated 14.07.2014 and 18.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders, if not already disposed of.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent to consider the representations dated 14.07.2014 and 18.11.2016 said to have been made by the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders, if not already disposed of, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶23

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

¶25

Date: 03.11.2022

¶26

Ksn

K.Kesavaraju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kesavaraju, 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

Viswanadhapalli Nallaiah Vs the State of Ap

A.Kamalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Prl. Secretary

Devineni Gopi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the R.D.O

Macherla Chennamma, Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Pri. Secretary

Murari Venkateswara Rao Vs The 5tate of Andhra Pradesh

Kasthuri Manayam, Chittoor Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.