Allowed

Pasupuleti Gangadevi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 May 2024WP/10456/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted a Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging the inaction of the Tahsildar in considering a boundary survey application for 0.89 cents of land. The Court directed the Respondent to consider and dispose of the application within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent (Tahsildar) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's online application within four months strictly in accordance with law.

Pasupuleti Gangadevi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

H fi

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10456 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

PASUPULETI GANGADEVI, W/o. P. Ramakrishna Aged 53 years,^Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.39/107-56, Siva Parvathi Nagar, Near Balaji School, Rayachoti, Annamayya District (Previously YSR Kadapa District)

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue (Assignment), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi. Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The District Collector, Annamayya District (previously YSR Kadapa District).

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoti Revenue Division, Rayachoti, Annamayya District

¶14

The Tahsildar, Sambepalle Mandal, Annamayya District (previously YSR Kadapa District)

¶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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.4 herein in considering the petitioner's online Application NO.FSNV012300077832 dated 03-01-2023, for conducting survey for fixing the boundaries in respect of the lands admeasuring^Ac.0-59 cents and Ac.0-30 cents, totaling to Ac.0-89 cents in Sy.No.333/1 situated at Dudyala Village, Sambepalle Mandal, Annamayya District (previously YSR Kadapa District), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A

¶17

V-

¶18

of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the 4th respondent herein to consider the petitioner's online Application No.FSNV012300077⁸³² dated 03-01-2023, for conducting survey for fixing the boundaries in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.0-59 cents and Ac.0-30 cents, totaling to Ac.0-89 cents in Sy.No.333/1 situated at Dudyala Village, Sambepalle Mandal, Annamayya District (previously YSR Kadapa District).

¶19

lA NO: 1 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- direct the 4th respondent herein to consider the petitioner's online Application No.FSNV012300077832 dated 03-01-2023, for conducting survey for fixing the boundaries in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.0-59 cents and Ac.0-30 cents, totaling^{toAc.0-89centsin} Sy.No.333/1 situated at Dudyala Village, Sambepalle Mandal, Annamayya District (previously YSR Kadapa District) pending disposal^{ofthemainWrit} Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner SRI. LOKESWARA PASUPULETI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

APHC010202572023

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3310]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 10456/2023

Between:

Pasupuleti Gangadevi

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.LOKESWARA PASUPULETI

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶41

The Court made the following Order:

¶42

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof}

¶43

India, seeking the following relief;

¶44

to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent^No.4hereinin considering the petitioners online Application No.FSNV0123000778^32dated 03.01.2023 for conducting survey for fixing the boundaries in respect of the lands admeasuring AcO.59 cents and Ac.0.30 cents, totaling^{toAc.0.89centsin} Sy.No.333/1 situated at Dudyala Village, Sambepalle Mandal, Annamayya District (previously YSR Kadapa District) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the 4**^ respondent herein to consider the petitioners online Application NO.FSNV012300077832 dated 03.01.2023 for conducting survey for fixing the boundaries in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.0.59 cents and Ac.0.30

¶45

cents, totaling to Ac.0.89 cents in Sy.No.333/1 situated at Dudyala Village, Sambepalle Mandal, Annamayya District (previously YSR Kadapa District)...."

¶46

None appeared for the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant^Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶47

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father^{isabsoluteowner} and possessor of the lands admeasuring Ac.0.59 cents^{andAc.0.30cents} totaling to an extent of Ac.0.89 cents in Survey No.333/1 situated at Dudyala Village, Sambepalle Mandal, Annamayya district (previously YSR Kadapa district). The petitioner have four sisters, in which two were passed away. leaving behind petitioner and her elder sister namely^{P.ParvathiDeviandthe} legal heirs of petitioner’s sisters are in actual physical possession of the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an online application vide FSNV012300077832, dated 03.01.2023 for conducting survey for fixing the boundaries in respect of the subject property. Though a period of sixty days has elapsed, the 4‘^ respondent not considered the application of the petitioner and not conducted survey. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶48

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that if the said application is still pending, the 4‘^ respondent will consider the application and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of four months.

¶49

In view of the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader, without going into other aspects, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent i.e., the Tahsildar, Sambepalle Mandal, Annamayya district (previously YSR Kadapa district) to consider and dispose of the application No.FSNV012300077832, dated 03.01.2023 made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶51

closed.

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

SD/- K. TATA RAO deputy .REGISTRAR

¶54

To.

¶55

SECTION OFFICER

¶56

Department of Revenue (Assignment), Secretariat PrincipalBuildingsSecretary^ Velagapudi. Amaravathi, Guntur District. ’

¶57

^ Disirictf Collector, Annamayya District (previously^YSRKadapa

¶58

f Divisional Officer, Rayachoti Revenue Division,

¶59

Rayachoti, Annamayya District

¶60

YSR^Ka^^aprbfstrfJtT”^"® (Previously

¶61

One CC to SRI. Lokeswara Pasupuleti Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

TwoCCsto GP for Revenue ,High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶63

Three CD Copies

• 4 .

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/05/2024

ORDER

WP.No.10456 of 2023

DISPOSING THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS

Pasupuleti Gangadevi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasupuleti Gangadevi 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

Karri Sudhakara Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yeluru Ranga Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Medarametla Jakkaraiah Vs The Station House Officer Jaggaiahpet police station

Banoji Rao and 2 Others Vs State of A.P. Home Dept and 2 Other

Pedada Srirama Murthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lakkireddy Seetarama Lakshmamma Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh