Petitioners sought directions to demarcate their land. The court found that the Mandal Revenue Officer had considered their representations and passed an order in 2009, concluding no substantive issue remained for the writ petition.
Writ petition closed; directed to serve order on counsel and communicate to petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
W.P. No. 28262 of 2007
Oral order:
The petitioners claim that they are absolute owners and possessors of land in an extent of Acs. 20.00 in Sy. No. 333/1 (New Sy. No. 874), Chintalagirivari Kandrika, Bogole Mandal, Nellore District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 20.12.1984 from the original Inamdar Sri. Chaturvedula Sriramamurthy. They state that when some persons tried to interfere with their possession, they filed civil suit, which ended in second appeal before this Court. While so, the petitioners state that in W.P. No. 22336 of 1996, this Court by order dated 19.12.1996, directed the revenue authorities to conduct enquiry as regards the claim of the petitioners. Thereafter, when the revenue officials tried to interfere with their possession, they filed civil suit, which was decreed in their favour, injuncting the revenue officials from entertaining any claims of third parties. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners state that they made representations dated 01.04.2002 and 10.10.2006 requesting the respondents to demarcate their land, and it is the case of the petitioners that the respondents have not demarcated the land, and as a result thereof, third parties are making claim over the land in their possession. Hence, they filed the writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to consider and dispose of their aforementioned representations.
Today when the matter is taken up, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the representations of the petitioners were considered and disposed of by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bogole Mandal, Nellore District, vide orders dated 04.04.2009. He further submitted that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bogole Mandal, Nellore District, communicated the orders to the petitioners, but they were returned uncommunicated, because petitioner No.1 was reported to be not available, while petitioner No.2 is said to have refused to receive the same.
Since the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bogole Mandal, Nellore District, is said to have considered and passed order dated 04.04.2009 on the representation of the petitioners, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition. However, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, shall serve a copy of the order dated 04.04.2009 on the counsel for the petitioners, while the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bogole Mandal, Nellore District, shall communicate the said order once again to the petitioners.
With the above directions, the writ petition is closed. No costs.
__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
17th February, 2011 IBL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the representations of the petitioners regarding land demarcation were considered and disposed of by the revenue authorities.
Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication after the revenue authorities allegedly disposed of the petitioners' representations.
Petitioners
Respondents
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
