Disposed

K Prabhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Feb 2024WA/1256/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal by an adjoining landowner disputing a survey requested by a third respondent under an F-Line application. The court held that surveys may proceed under Board Standing Order 34-A(20) and the departmental circular, that such demarcation does not declare ownership or possession, and disposed of the appeal leaving the decision to the Tahsildar.

What the court decided

AI extract

K Prabhar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

W.A.No.1256 of 2023

Between:

K. Prabhar Reddy, S/o Kare Goud Aged about 50 years, R/o D.No.10-25, Kekear, Hemavathi Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶6

And

¶7

$ State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District & two others.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Date of Judgment pronounced on : 22-02-2024

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE &

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No

¶13

to Law Reporters/Journals:

¶14

Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No Of the Judgment?

¶15

¶16

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.1256 of 2023

¶17

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶18

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19

W.A.No.1256 of 2023

¶20

% Dated: 22-02-2024

¶21

K. Prabhar Reddy, S/o Kare Goud Aged about 50 years, R/o D.No.10-25, Kekear, Hemavathi Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶22

And

¶23

$ State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District & two others.

¶24

…Respondents

¶25

! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Narasimhulu Parise

¶26

^ Counsel for RespondentNos.1 & 2 : Government Pleader for Revenue

¶27

^ Counsel for the 3^rd Respondent : Sri Maheswar Rao

¶28

Kunchem

¶29

<GIST :

¶30

HEAD NOTE:

¶31

? Cases referred:

¶32

¶33

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.1256 of 2023

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶35

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶36

WRIT APPEAL No.1256 of 2023

¶37

Between:

¶38

K. Prabhar Reddy, S/o Kare Goud Aged about 50 years, R/o D.No.10-25, Kekear, Hemavathi Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶39

…Appellant

¶40

Versus

¶41

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District & two others.

¶42

…Respondents

¶43

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Narasimhulu Parise

¶44

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Government Pleader for Revenue

¶45

Counsel for the 3^rd Respondent : Sri Maheswar Rao Kunchem

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

Dt: 22.02.2024

¶48

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶49

Heard Sri Narasimhulu Parise, learned counsel for the

¶50

appellant and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing

HCJ&RRR,J

W.A. No.1256 of 2023

for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Maheswar Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶55

The 3^rd respondent herein, claiming to be the owner of Ac.6.30 cents of land in Sy.Nos.85-1 & 85-2 of Hymavathi Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, filed an F-Line application on 29.05.2023 to the 2^nd respondent for conduct of a survey in respect of the said land and for demarcation of its boundaries. As no steps were being taken in pursuance of this application, the 3^rd respondent approached this Court by way of W.P.No.22777 of 2023 for a direction to the authorities to take up such survey. This Court by an order dated 01.09.2023, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar, to take appropriate action on the application of the 3^rd respondent herein dated 29.05.2023.

¶56

The appellant herein, who is not a party to the said writ petition, has filed the present writ appeal, with leave, contending that he is the owner of Ac.1.67 cents of land in Sy.No.85-2, out of the entire extent of Ac.11.82 cents of land in Sy.85-2 and as such there cannot be any survey that can be conducted in this regard.

¶57

It is the case on both sides that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and more especially, Section 10 of the said Act, would be applicable and would require

¶58

¶59

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.1256 of 2023

¶60

notices to be issued to all the counsel parties and it would also provide for an appeal to the affected parties.

¶61

Sri P. Subash, learned Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 are not applicable in the present case and it would be the provisions of the Board of Revenue Standing Orders 34-A, which would be applicable. He would rely upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.110 of 2013 dated 14.06.2013, the Judgment of a Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.38104 of 2012 dated 26.12.2012 and the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1003 of 2013 dated 16.07.2013.

¶62

In the order dated 26.12.2012 in W.P.No.38104 of 2012, a Learned Single Judge of this Court, after reviewing the law in this regard, had held that there is no statutory obligation cast on the respondents to conduct a survey and no person can claim, as of right, that a mandamus should be issued to the statutory respondents to survey the lands required to be surveyed by the said person. Subsequently, two separate Division Benches of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.Nos.110 of 2013 and 1003 of 2013 had taken the view that by virtue of certain circulars issued by the Government and by virtue of the Board

¶63

¶64

Standing Orders, there is no bar for the revenue officials to conduct survey of the lands on the request made by private parties, subject to their furnishing of relevant documents. A perusal of the Board Standing Order No.34-A would also make it clear that such a survey to demarcate private holdings is permissible.

¶65

The Board of Revenue Standing Order 34-A (20) provides for applications to be made by private parties to point out the boundaries of their fields in accordance with the survey records. Such applications are to be received by the Tahsildar, which would then be forwarded to the surveyor. The said Board of Revenue Standing Order 34-A (20) also provides for applications to be made to the higher grade officers subject to the condition of deposit of prescribed fee.

¶66

The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey Settlements and Land Records has also issued circular R.C.No.N1/6543/1999 dated 25.07.200l, setting out instructions, as to how such applications are to be dealt with. This circular requires land holders to file their applications before the Mandal Revenue Officers who would forward the same to the Mandal Surveyors who would undertake the demarcation work. The authority undertaking the survey is also required to give notice to

HCJ&RRR,J

W.A. No.1256 of 2023

the neighboring land holders to attend the demarcation work. The circular also provides for appeals to the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and a second appeal to the inspector of Survey and Assistant Director of Survey stationed in the District Headquarters. The circular also states that further appeals are also provided.

¶71

In view of the provisions of the Board of Revenue Standing Order 34-A (20) and circular dated 25.07.2001, the applications made by the petitioner would have to be considered as an application made under the above Standing Orders and circular and survey can be carried out.

¶72

In the present case, the appellant herein has raised a dispute as to the title in relation to a part of the land that is sought to be surveyed. It is the apprehension of the appellant herein that any demarcation of the land, as claimed by the 3^rd respondent, would amount to a declaration that the 3^rd respondent is in possession of the said land and such declaration would adversely affect the rights of the appellant herein.

¶73

The said apprehension is misplaced. Mere survey of the land

¶74

would not amount to any declaration that the person who has

¶75

¶76

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.1256 of 2023

¶77

requested such a survey is in possession of the said land or that he is the owner of the said land. It may also be noted that one of the pre-requisites for conduct of such a survey is the requirement that the parties produce the necessary documents before the survey authorities and it is only on the basis of the said documents that a survey is conducted.

¶78

In the circumstances, the writ appeal is disposed of by leaving it open to the Tahsildar to take a decision on the F-Line application made by the 3^rd respondent on the basis of the documents produced by 3^rd respondent as well as the appellant herein. It is also made clear that any such survey, if conducted, would not amount to any declaration that the land surveyed and demarcated by the survey authorities is owned or possessed by the 3^rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶79

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

¶80

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶81

MJA

¶82

¶83

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.1256 of 2023

¶84

189

¶85