Allowed

Panduga China Chennaiah S/o rangaiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC11 Feb 2009WP/13210/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed a writ petition challenging a land survey conducted without prior notice to the petitioner. Finding the survey arbitrary and violative of the A.P. Survey & Boundaries Act, the Court set aside the survey and the recovery of possession, directing respondents to follow statutory procedures. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed. The survey conducted on 5.6.2007 and steps in pursuance thereof were set aside. The petitioners to conduct the survey after observing prescribed procedure and to recover

Panduga China Chennaiah S/o rangaiah Vs The Revenue… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13210 of 2007

¶5

Between:

¶6

Panduga China Chennaiah S/o rangaiah R/o Gudemgadda H/o Kagazmaddur Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak, Medak District.

¶9

2 The Tahsildar, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District.

¶10

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in conducting survey without issuing notice to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Sec. 6(1) of the A.P. Survey & Boundaries Act and is violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the survey conducted behind the back of the petitioner by the respondent and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VIJAY KUMAR HEROOR

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶16

WRIT PETITION No. 13210 of 2007

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The petitioner is the owner of land in Survey No.139/78 of Kagazmaddar Village, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. On the allegation that the petitioner is in possession of the Government land in the neighbourhood of his patta land, the respondents intended to conduct survey. The survey is said to have been conducted on 5.6.2007. In the resultant panchanama, it has been mentioned that the area owned by the petitioner is only Acs. 4.34 guntas and he was found to be in possession of Acs.5.02 guntas of Government land in the neighbourhood. It was also mentioned that after demarcating the land of Ac.4.34 guntas, possession of the remaining area was taken by the respondents. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the survey and other connected proceedings initiated by the respondents.

¶19

The respondents filed counter affidavit.

¶20

It is stated that on a representation made by the nineteen (19) assignees, initially, a survey was proposed to be conducted on 9.5.2007 and thereafter it was conducted on 5.6.2007. It is stated that the petitioner was not available in the house and as such, the notice was displayed in the

¶21

Panchayat Office on 5.6.2007 itself. The possession of Acs. 5.02 guntas of land is said to have been taken in favour of the Government and handed over to the Village Revenue Officer for safe custody.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶23

The basic requirements for conducting survey under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 is that the persons owning land in the neighbourhood are issued notice, well in advance. Since their rights are immediately affected, they are required to be put on notice. In the instant case, the respondents did not choose to serve notice on the petitioner though he is admittedly a pattadar of land in Survey No. 139/78 and his land was proposed to be surveyed. Display of notice in the Gram Panchayat Office, that too, on the day of conducting survey itself is nothing but reducing the entire process to an empty formality.

¶24

The second aspect is that the respondents have proceeded to recover possession from the petitioner of the land, which is said to be in excess of the land owned by him. Even this step is contrary to law. In case, the petitioner is found to be in possession of Government land, the proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act,1905 are to be initiated.

¶25

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the entire survey conducted on 5.6.2007 as well as the steps taken in pursuance of it. It is left open to the respondents to conduct survey duly observing the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and the Rules made thereunder. In case, the petitioner is found to be in possession of any Government land, the possession thereof shall be recovered after initiating proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. No costs.

¶26

L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶27

DATE: 11.2.2009

¶28

pnb

Panduga China Chennaiah S/o rangaiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panduga China Chennaiah S/o rangaiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Guda Malathi Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Bhagyanagar Investment and Trading PVt., Ltd., Plot No. 18, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar mandal

M.A. Sami Khan, Vs The District Collector

Fareed Hussain Khan, Vs The District Collector

Pongupati Venkata Saraswathi Vs Tahsildar

Smt. Jakata Danamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh