Samraju @ K.V. Syamraj, Chittoor Dist. Vs Dist. Collector, Chittoor Dist.

SAMRAJU @ K.V. SYAMRAJ, CHITTOOR DIST., S/O K.P. VISWANADH VISWNATHAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SAGINEKUPPAM VILLAGE, H/O BANDARLAPALLI, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

DIST COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DIST, -

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL, RAMAKUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE ASST DIRECTOR OF MINES GEOLOGY, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR OF MINES GEOLOGY, BURGULA RAMAKRISHNA BHAVAN, HYDERABAD

¶17

K V AMARNADH, S/O K.P.VISWANADHAM, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SAGINEKUPPAM VILLAGE, H/O BANDARLAPALLI, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 toto issue Writ order or direction more particulars one in the writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not issuing duplicate pass book and title deeds in favour of the petitioner in respect of land to an

¶20

2

¶21

extent of Ac.4.80 cents in Survey No.1535/2 of Bandarlapalli village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District and issuing no objection certificate in favour of the 5th respondent for grant of quarry lease by the 2nd respondent even without consent of the petitioner is illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to issue duplicate pass book and title deeds infavour of the petitioner forthwith and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 8090 OF 2014

¶23

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 5th respondent not to proceed with the quarry operations in the petitioner's land in Survey No.1535/2 of Bandarlapalli village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District based on the Proceedings No.2736/Q/2007 dt. 0907-2009 of the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶24

IA NO: 4 OF 2014(WPMP 41900 OF 2014

¶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 to direct the 2nd respondent to issue Pattadar Pass Book to the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.4-80 cents in Sy. No. 1535/2 of Bandarlapalli Village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶26

IA NO: 5 OF 2014(WPMP 165792 OF 2014

¶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 Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.V B SUBRAHMANYAM

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶31

2.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

3

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 6524/2014

¶36

ORDER:-

¶37

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

¶38

“to issue Writ order or direction more particulars one in the writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in not issuing duplicate pass book and title deeds infavour of the petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Ac.4.80 cents in Survey No.1535/2 of Bandarlapalli village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District and issuing no objection certificate in favour of the 5^th respondent for grant of quarry lease by the 2^nd respondent even without consent of the petitioner is illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to issue duplicate pass book and title deeds in favour of the petitioner forthwith and pass…”

¶39

On 16.08.2024, there was no representation for the petitioner; thus, the

¶40

matter was listed on 02.09.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 04.02.2026, and on that day, it was adjourned at the instance of the petitioner for obtaining instructions. Subsequently, on 18.02.2026, the matter was listed again. On that date, there was no representation for the petitioner, and the matter is listed today.

¶41

Today, when the matter is taken-up for hearing, no representation for

¶42

the petitioner even though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’.

¶43

4

¶44

Apparently, the writ petition is of the year 2014. Despite being given sufficient opportunities, the petitioner has not evinced any interest in pursuing the case. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶45