Disposed

Vendra Gopala Krishna v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Nov 2023WP/3994/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement declaring a survey conducted at his land site as legal without proper survey. Court found survey report available, believed it was done but directed petitioner to file appeal for grievances under statutory scheme.

What did the court decide?

Directions to petitioner to file appeal for grievances under statutory scheme within four weeks; Writ Petition disposed of.

Vendra Gopala Krishna Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAt I^o (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3994 OF 2023

¶7

Between: Vendra Gopala Krishna, S/o. Venkanna, 65 years, R/o.H.No.156, Koppisetty vari Street, Penugonda village and Mandal, West Godavari Dist-534320

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of AP, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept. Secretariat buildings, Amaravati, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶11

The District Collector, West Godavari District. Bhimavaram

¶12

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Penugonda, West Godavari District.

¶13

The Divisional Engineer, APEPDCL, Nidadavolu, West Godavari Dist.

¶14

The Assistant Engineer, APEPDCL, Penugonda, West Godavari Dist.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the endorsement Dt.24.1.2023 issued by the 3'^ Respondent without conducting proper survey for RS.No.60-7 and 62-1B1A1 by collecting statutory charges as per application No.FS012201984338, Dt.18.5.2022 by the Petitioner and runs contrary to sec 9 & 10 of the AP Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Fundamental rights and duties guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from principles of natural justice, and consequently directing the 3'^'^ Respondent to conduct survey pursuant to application made by the Petitioner on 18.05.2022 vide application No.FS012201984338, thereafter, if found, illegally electrical pole erected by the 4*^ and 5^^ Respondents in the Petitioners land in RS.No.62-1 BIA an extent of Ac.2-76 cents to be removed, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to directing the 3rd Respondent to conduct survey pursuant to application made by the Petitioner 18.05.2022 vide application No.FSOI2201984338, thereafter, if found, illegally electrical pole erected by the 4th & 5th Respondents in the Petitioners land in RS.No.62-1B1A1 an extent of Ac.2-76 cents to be removed, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No.3 in the writ petition No.3994 of 2023 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. K K DURGA PRASAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents 4 & 5 : SRI METTA CHANDRASEKHAR RAO, SC FOR A.P.E.P.D.C.L.

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.3994 of 2023

¶28

Between

¶29

Vendra Gopala Krishna

¶30

.... Petitioner

¶31

And

¶32

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi & Others. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.K.K.Durga Prasad Counsel for the respondents ; G.P. for Revenue Mr.Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the Endorsement dated 24.01.2023 issued by the 3"^ respondent, without conducting proper survey in respect of R.S.No.60-7 and 62-lBlAl pursuant to the application dated 18.05.2022 made by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Sections 9 and 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'), apart from violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to the 3^'^ respondent to conduct survey and to remove electrical pole, if found, erected by the 4^ and 5^^ respondents illegally in the petitioner's land in R.S.No.62-lBlA of an extent of Ac.2.76 cents.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for A.P.E.P.D.C.L., for respondents 4 and 5.

¶36

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner inherited an extent of Ac.5.44 cents in R.S.No.62-1 and an extent of Ac.0.58 cents in R.S.No.60-7 by virtue of a Will dated 05.10.1985 executed by the petitioner's mother. Out of the said extent, the petitioner executed a Registered Settlement Deed in favour of his brothers on 18.08.2015 and at present the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of balance extent of the subject matter property i.e. Ac.2.76 cents in R.S.No.62-lBlAl and another extent of Ac.0.58 cents in R.S.No.60-7 of Penugonda Village. The learned counsel submits that as a part of implementation of 'Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu' scheme, the Government acquired some extent of land on the western side of the petitioner's property in R.S.No.62IBIAI and as also on the southern side of the property in Survey No.60-7 and granted house sites. He submits that at that time, the boundary stones were changed taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 erected poles high-handedly in the petitioner's site/land in R.S.NO.62-1B1A1. He submits that under the said circumstances, the petitioner made an application dated 18.05.2022 for conduct of survey of the land in R.S.No.60-7 and 62-lBlAl by paying the requisite charges. As no action was taken on the said application, he submits that the petitioner made a representation in 'Spandana programme' on 28.11.2022 and to cover up his lapses, the 3"* respondent issued an impugned Endorsement dated 24.01.2023 to the effect that a survey was already conducted and therefore, the complaint is closed. The learned counsel submits that the

¶38

¶39

survey stated to have been conducted was without notice to the petitioner and the same is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He also submits that the relevant documents with reference to conduct of survey i.e., sketch and survey report etc., are not furnished to the petitioner assuming that a survey was conducted as sought to be projected. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks the reliefs as prayed for.

¶40

On the Other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue made his submissions on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed by the 3*^ respondent. While drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant material filed along with the counter-affidavit, he contends that the survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and others and after identifying the boundaries and after showing the same to the petitioner, the survey stones were planted and the boundaries were fixed accordingly. He submits that the petitioner had accepted the survey and to the reasons best known to him, had filed the present Writ Petition stating as if the survey was not conducted as per the procedure. He also submits that if the petitioner has any grievance with the survey conducted by the respondents, the Statute i.e., the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act provides for a remedy of appeal and the petitioner instead of availing the same, filed the present Writ Petition and the same is not maintainable.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 & 5 made submissions inter alia stating that pursuant to an application dated

¶42

¶43

03.07.2021 made by Gram Panchayat Secretary seeking Electrification of 'Jagananna Housing Colony' lay out, estimates were prepared and after sanction by the Competent Authority, work orders were issued for erection of poles for providing electrification to the said lay out. He submits that the line was charged and power supply was released to the beneficiaries in the lay out in the month of July, 2021. Be that as it may. He submits that the lines were laid by following the procedure and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against respondents 4 and 5.

¶44

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it would appear that pursuant to the application made by him, no survey much less a proper survey of the subject matter lands, was conducted in terms of the provisions of the Act. However, as seen from the material filed along with the counter-affidavit of the 3"^ respondent, it would appear that notices were issued to the concerned parties including the petitioner herein and thereafter the survey was undertaken. The statement of the petitioner also appears to have been obtained during the course of survey. However, in the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner, a plea was taken to the effect that as per the directions of the surveyor, the petitioner signed on some papers on 31.05.2022 and the same were pressed into service as if the survey was conducted by issuing a notice and as per the procedure, which is not true. Though the learned

¶45

¶46

¶47

counsel for the petitioner made efforts to impress upon this Court that if really a survey was conducted, a report would have been drawn and a copy of the same would have been furnished to the petitioner, it may be pertinent to note that the 3"^ respondent filed a copy of the survey report dated 31.05.2022 along with a Memo on 21.09.2023. Be that as it may. As the survey report is now available to the petitioner, this Court instead of further probing into the matter, which involves factual controversies, deems it appropriate to leave it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy in respect of his grievances about the conduct of survey of the subject matter lands. If the petitioner choses to avail the remedy, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, the concerned authority shall entertain and examine the same and pass appropriate orders. in accordance with Law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of filing of the appeal.

¶48

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

^4ecti OFFICER

¶53

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept. State of AP, Secretariat buildings, Amaravati, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Penugonda, West Godavari District 4. The Divisional Engineer, APEPDCL, Nidadavolu, West Godavari Dist. 5. The Assistant Engineer, APEPDCL, Penugonda, West Godavari Dist. 6. One CC to SRI. K K DURGA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 7 Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8 One CC to SRI METTA CHANDRASEKHAR RAO, SC FOR A.P.E.P.D.C.L. [OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/11/2023

ORDER

WP.No.3994 of 2023

¶59

¶60

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

IS- Copfes

Vendra Gopala Krishna v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vendra Gopala Krishna v. the State of Ap

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

Gajula Mangamma, Vs Sri. J. Syamala Rao

Gopidesi Rajendra Vs Special Deputy Collector, ( L. a.) (Fac)

Kota Maheswari Vs S.V. Nageswara Rao

M/S. Padma Engineering Works Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Padma Engineering Works Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Novitas Infotech, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh