Allowed

S.Md.Abbas v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC14 Dec 2006WP/17738/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning a land dispute between adjoining landlords in Sy.No.9, the High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to personally supervise a survey of the entire land extent within 15 days and submit the report within 30 days, dismissing partial surveys.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to personally supervise the survey of the entire extent of Ac.12.16 cents in Sy.No.9 and conclude it within 15 days, submitting the report within 30 days.

S.Md.Abbas Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.NO. 17738 OF 2003

¶3

DATED: 14.12.2006

¶4

Between: S.Md. Abbas … Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddapah and others … Respondents

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶6

W.P.NO.17738 OF 2003

¶7

ORAL ORDER:

¶8

According to the petitioner, he and the 3^rd respondent are adjoining landlords in Sy.No.9, Masapeta village, Rayachoty Mandal, Cuddapah District. While the petitioner has Ac.1.00 thereat, the 3^rd respondent has Ac.3.00. On 22.9.2000, the petitioner applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, for a survey and demarcation to identify his land in Sy.No.9. On 25.11.2000, the MRO passed an order concluding that land in Sy.No.9 to an extent of Ac.1.00 as per document No.679 of 1900 claimed by the writ petitioner and as per the location determined by the Mandal Surveyor and as per the provisions of Survey and Boundaries Act, is correctly identified and ordered preparation of fresh S.D. Records.

¶9

Thereagainst, the 3^rd respondent preferred an appeal to the 1^st respondent on 2.12.2000. Aggrieved that the 1^st respondent has not disposed of the appeal, the 3^rd respondent preferred W.P.No.24952 of 2000. The writ petition was disposed of by the judgment of this Court

¶10

dated 18.12.2000 directing the 1^st respondent herein to dispose of the 3^rd respondent’s appeal within three months and till then, directing that status-quo be maintained.

¶11

Pursuant to the directions of this court above, the 1^st respondent by an order dated 1.7.2002 went into the whole dispute as to the boundaries, between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent and eventually directed that as the land in Sy.No.9 consists of Ac.12.16 cents in all, it would be administratively appropriate to survey and fix boundaries for the entire extent in Sy.No.9, as the exercise of subdivision record preparation would be inaccurate and would not be conducive to local peace. The 3^rd respondent-appellant was directed to pay Rs.700/- for the 7 pattadars in Sy.No.9 for ensuring survey of the entire extent of Ac.12.16 cents.

¶12

Thereafter, the 1^st respondent on 6.10.2002 noticing that the 3^rd respondent did not deposit the amount as directed in his order dated 1.7.2002, directed the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Revenue Divisional Office, Cuddapah, to fix up the boundaries of the land in respect of the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent herein instead of going in for a survey and demarcation of the entire land in Sy.No.9. Eventually, the Deputy Surveyor of the 1^st respondent’s office surveyed the land of the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent and submitted his report on 23.3.2003 to the 1^st respondent. On the basis of the said report, the 1^st respondent on 16.5.2003 addressed the 2^nd

¶13

respondent directing provision of police aid to the petitioner, for enjoyment of the petitioner’s property in accordance with the report dated 23.3.2003. Thereafter, by a letter dated 14.6.2003 addressed to the MRO, Rayachoty, the 1^st respondent recanted from his earlier decision (contained in his letter dated 16.5.2003). As a consequence, the petitioner alleges, the 2^nd respondent is not extending police aid to him.

¶14

In the meandering proceedings chronicled above, there is as yet no proper survey of the entire extent of Ac.12.16 cents in Sy.No.9 leading to a regnant, relentless tussle between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, with regard to the identity of their respective properties.

¶15

Establishment of peace is the duty and obligation of the State. The reluctance of the 3^rd respondent to deposit the amount of Rs.700/-, as directed in the 1^st respondent’s order dated 1.7.2002, appears irrational. Equally irrational is the subsequent order of the 1^st respondent dated 6.10.2002 directing survey of only the petitioner’s and the 3^rd respondent’s land. The report submitted by the Deputy Surveyor of the 1^st respondent’s office dated 23.3.2003 surveying only the lands of the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent has also not solved the problem either to the satisfaction of the petitioner or even to the satisfaction of the 3^rd respondent.

¶16

In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to forthwith and personally supervise the

¶17

survey of the entire extent of Ac.12.16 cents in Sy.No.9 with the assistance of the appropriate technical apparatus and personnel. The 1^st respondent shall conduct and conclude the survey and prepare the report within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned counsel for the petitioner and of the 3^rd respondent undertake before this court that the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent will deposit Rs.350/- each before the 1^st respondent within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, towards the cost of the survey of the entire extent of land in Sy.No.9.

¶18

A copy of the survey report, pursuant of the survey as directed above shall be furnished to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, by the 1^st respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due, without fail or demur. On receipt of such report, the parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies in accordance with law.

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 14.12.2006

¶21

Note: CC as soon as possible. Bo cvm

S.Md.Abbas v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Md.Abbas v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

A.Raghavan, Vs Tirupathi Urban Development Authority, Tirupathi

M/s. Mahalife Online Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Govt of a.P., rep. byits Prl., Secretary

Didigam Ravinder Vs Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, rep.by its

J.Satyasri Ram Babu, Vs a.P.State Warehousing Corporation (a State

P.Malla Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.G.Satyanarayana Vs The Commissioner of Labour, Anjaiah Bhavan