Disposed

Batta Jyothi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 May 2024WP/2261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the inaction of revenue authorities in surveying her property. The respondents submitted that the survey had already been conducted and proceedings were issued. The Court directed the service of the proceedings to the petitioner and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to serve survey proceedings R.C.No.FL/1000/2022 dated 03.02.2023 to the petitioner within one month.

Batta Jyothi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

\ 'I:

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY. THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2261 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Batta Jyothi, W/o B Shiva Prasad, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o D.No.5-188, Gannavaram Village and Mandal, NTR District (Erst while Krishna District)

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, At Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Andhra Pradesh

¶12

The District Collector, Vijayawada, NTR District. (Erst while Krishna District)

¶13

The Tahsildar, Gannavaram Mandal, Vijayawada, NTR District. (Erst while Krishna District

¶14

The Mandal Surveyor, Gannavaram Mandal, Vijayawada, NTR District. (Erst while Krishna 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^^j^lfssed to issue a Writ, One in the nature of^{aWritofMandamusorany} the inaction of the other^ ^pipropriate Wirt, Direction or Order declaring respondents in measuring by survey and sub-division of the property belongs to petitioner an extent of Ac 0.45 cents in Survey Number 379/1 situated at Keserapalli Revenue Village, Gannavaram Mandal, NTR District (erst while Krishna District ) though petitioner made F-Lineb application No.FSNV012200017341 dated 16.12.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to conduct survey in respect of above said land by considering the petitioner's application dated 16.12.2022.

¶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 direct the 3rd and 4th respondent to survey^and demark petitioner's property in respect of land an extent of an extent of Ac 0.45 cents in Survey Number 379/1 situated at Keserapalli Revenue Village Gannavaram Mandal NTR District (erst while Krishna District by considering the petitioner's F-Line application F-Line application No.FSNVOI 2200017341 dated 16.12.2022.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. P NARAHARI BABU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶22

APHC010045622023

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶24

[3310]

¶25

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

MONDAY .THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 2261/2023

Between:

Batta Jyothi

...PETITIONER

AND

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

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶38

The Court made the following Order:

¶39

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

¶40

seeking the following relief:

¶41

“ ...to issue a Writ, One in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order declaring the inaction of the respondents in measuring by survey and subdivision of the property belongs^topetitioner an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Survey Number 379/1 situated at Keserapalli Revenue Village, Gannavaram Mandal, NTR District (erst^while Krishna^District) though petitioner made F-Line application No.FSNVOI^2200017341 dated 16.12.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to conduct survey in respect of above said land by considering the petitioner’s application dated 16.12.2022...."

¶42

Heard Mr.P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the^petitioner is an absolute owner and possessor of land in an extent of^{Ac.0.45centsinSurvey} No.379/1 situated at Keserapalli Revenue Village, Gannavaram^Mandal,NTR district. He further submits that when the respondents trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment, the petitioner filed^{WP.No. 13654of2020and} the same was disposed on 24.08.2020 by recording the^{submissionoflearned} Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that they are not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property.^{Hefurthersubmits} that the petitioner made an application to the 3'^^^{respondentthroughMee-} Seva vide F-Line Application No.FSNVOI2200017341 dated 16.12.2022 to survey and demark the property. The 4‘^ respondent^{notdoingsurveyand} measuring in respect of petitioner’s property. Aggrieved^{bythesame,the} petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶44

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furnished a copy of Written Instructions issued by Tahsildar, Gannavaram,^{dated04.02.2023} and submits that the petitioner’s application was considered^{andtheVillage} Surveyor conducted the survey of the petitioner’s land as per F-Line Application through Mee-Seva Application No.FSNVOI2200017341 for an

¶45

extent of Ac.0.45 cents in R.S.No.379/1 of Kesarapalli^{VillageofGannavaram} Mandal and submitted the report and the Deputy Tahsildar,^{Gannavaramhad} issued proceedings vide R.C.No.FL/1000/2022, dated^03.02.2023.

¶46

Per Contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the^copyof vide the proceedings issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Gannavaram R.C.No.FL/1000/2022, dated 03.02.2023 is not served^{tothepetitioner,}

¶47

counsel and learned 6. On hearing the submissions of petitioner’s Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, the respondent^{authoritiesare} directed to serve the copy of proceedings issued by^{theDeputyTahsildar,} Gannavaram vide R.C.No.FL/1000/2022, dated 03.02.2023 to the petitioner. within a period of one (01) month from the date of^{receiptofacopyofthis} Order. On receipt of the same, the petitioner is at^{libertytotakeappropriate} steps, in accordance with law.

¶48

With the above observations, the writ petition is^disposedof.

¶49

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if^{any,shallstand}

¶51

closed.

¶52

Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,State^ofAndhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, At Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Andhra

¶57

Pradesh

¶58

The District Collector, Vijayawada, NTR District.^{(ErstwhileKrishna} District)

¶59

The Tahsildar, Gannavaram Mandal, Vijayawada, NTR^{District.(Erst} while Krishna District

¶60

The Mandal Surveyor, Gannavaram Mandal, Vijayawada,^NTRDistrict. (Erst while Krishna District

¶61

One CC to SRI. P NARAHARI BABU Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh.[OUT]}

¶63

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:06m5/2p24 ij V

ORDER

WP.No.2261 of 2023

h'
•i. 1 2 JUN 202A c
w«>'
f-'

¶70

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Batta Jyothi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Batta Jyothi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Mohammed Rafi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Y. Mrudula Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gandla Chinna Pullaiah, Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and 5 Ors.

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