Undavalli Durga Maheswari @ Reddi Durga Maheswari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

UNDAVALLI DURGA MAHESWARI @ REDDI DURGA MAHESWARI, W/O. UNDAVALLI SRINIVASA RAO, AGE 35 YEARS R/O. H. NO. 6- 17, MEENAVALLURU, PENTAPADU MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELURU DIVISION ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, UNGUTURU MANDAL UNGUTURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶17

THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, UNGUTURU MANDAL UNGUTURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more

¶20

2

¶21

HBKM,J

¶22

W.P.No.25161 of 2020

¶23

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to grant house sites pattas in petitioner's agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 0.40 cents out of Ac. 1.80 cents in Sy. No. 644-3B of Unguturu Revenue Village, Unguturu Mandal, West Godavari District by dispossessing her without following due process of law, by issuing an endorsement in R.C. No. 150/2020/A dated 11.12.2020 of 4th respondent without conducting proper survey, without incorporating the sub-divisions in the Field Measurement Book (FMB) and without furnishing a copy of map recording the boundaries as illegal, ultra-virus, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure established by law apart from being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to grant house sites pattas in petitioner's agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 1.80 cents in Sy. No. 644-3B Unguturu Revenue Village, Unguturu Mandal, West Godavari District without fixing boundaries to petitioner's land by conducting proper survey in the interest of justice and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶25

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 pleased to DIRECT the respondents, not to grant house sites as per the Endorsement in R.C. No. 150/2020/A dated 11.12.2020 issued by the 4th respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶27

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 pleased to vacating the interim order granted on 24-12-2020 in WP.No.25161 of 2020 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

3

¶34

HBKM,J W.P.No.25161 of 2020

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO. 25161 of 2020

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶39

This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in resorting to grant house site pattas in petitioner’s agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents out of Ac.1.80 cents in Sy.No.644-3B of Unguturu Revenue Village, Unguturu Mandal, West Godavari District by dispossessing her without following the due process of law by issuing an endorsement in R.C.No.150/2020/A, dated 11.12.2020 of the 4^th respondent without conducting proper survey and without incorporating the sub-divisions in the Field Measurement Book and without furnishing a copy of map recording the boundaries.

¶40

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader filed the counter affidavit of the 4^th respondent and submits that at the request of the petitioner, by way of submitting the F-Line application dated 08.06.2020, the survey was conducted by the authorities concerned by fixing the date as 07.07.2020. On the day of conducting the survey, the father of the writ petitioner attended along with the neighboring ryots. The same was also recorded by the Mandal Surveyor on the same day. The Mandal Surveyor, Unguturu submitted the report to Tahsildar, Unguturu regarding R.S.No.644

¶41

4

¶42

HBKM,J W.P.No.25161 of 2020

¶43

along with explanatory sketch. In that report the said R.S.No.644 in an extent of Ac.24.57 cents as per RSR of Ungutur Mandal is divided into 5 sub divisions and the details are as under:

¶44

Name of the village	R.S.No.	Extent Ac. cts	Name of the land owner
Ungutur	644-1	19.57	Thallapragada Bhimeswara Rao
	644-2	0.40	LCC Land (Thallapragada Visweswara Rao)
	644-3A	2.00	Reddy Hema Chand
	644-3B	1.80	Undavalli Durga Maheswari @ Reddy Durga Maheswari
	644-3B1	1.80	Rudraraju Rama Krishna Raju
Total		24.57

¶45

As per the revenue records, the land in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in R.S.No.644-2 is LCC land (Talla Pragada Visweswara Rao). Whereas, the petitioner purchased the land in an extent of Ac.1.80 cents in R.S.No.644-3B of Unguturu village and Mandal through registered sale deed No.1509/1997, dated 16.06.1997 of SRO Tadepalligudem. She is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same, but at present, the scheduled land is LCC land and it is lying in R.S.No.644-2 adjacent to the petitioner’s land. The official respondents never interfered with the petitioner’s land in R.S.No.644-3B.

¶46

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, however, against the survey conducted, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3^rd respondent, dated 19.12.2020.

¶47

5

¶48

HBKM,J W.P.No.25161 of 2020

¶49

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the petitioner already approached the appellate authority concerned by way of an appeal, the same can be pursued in accordance with law by the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent shall dispose of the appeal of the petitioner, if not already disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law.

¶50