Dismissed

M. Anjaneyulu v. Govt. of A.P.

Telangana HC24 Jul 2012WP/22633/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner challenged a survey conducted by respondents for demarcation of assigned land. The Court held the writ petition was not the correct remedy for survey disputes and directed the petitioner to pursue remedies under the A.P Survey and Boundaries Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to pursue remedies under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act.

M. Anjaneyulu Vs Govt. of A.P. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.22633 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner was assigned an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.4 of Vepoor Village, Hunwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, in the year 2005. There were allegations that the petitioner has encroached the nala and graveyard, which are located in the same survey number. On earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court, complaining that the respondents are trying to dispossess him from the assigned land. The writ petition was admitted, and an order of temporary injunction was granted in W.P.M.P.No.1008 of 2012 in W.P.No.791 of 2012. He has also filed a Contempt Case, alleging that the order of temporary injunction was violated. The Contempt Case was closed, taking on record, the explanation offered by the petitioner, that the notice issued to the petitioner does not cover the two acres of land, that was assigned to him.

¶5

This writ petition is filed, alleging that the respondents 4 and 5 brought into existence, a panchanama, dated 15-06-2012, and on that basis, they are proposing to evict him from the assigned land, by issuing notice dated 29-06-2012.

¶6

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

¶7

The respondents do not dispute that the petitioner was assigned two acres of land. The total extent of Sy.No.4 is Ac.3.20 guntas. Apart from two acres, assigned to the petitioner, there existed a nala, and graveyard. The survey was conducted by respondents 4

¶8

and 5, to resolve the controversy, and demarcated the land, that was assigned to the petitioner. In case the petitioner has any objection to the survey, he has to work out his remedies,

¶9

as provided for under the provisions of A.P Survey and Boundaries Act. He cannot challenge the outcome of a survey, by filing a writ petition, in the name of enjoying the assigned land. The petitioner cannot encroach the remaining part of the land, particularly, the graveyard and nala.

¶10

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law.

¶11

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of.

¶12

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶14

Dt.24-07-2012

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶17

Writ Petition No.22245 of 2012

¶18

Date:23.07.2012

¶19

M. Anjaneyulu v. Govt. of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Anjaneyulu v. Govt. of A.P.

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

Doddi Nagendrudu Vs The District Collector

Chilakalapudi Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Rama Sastrulu Vs The Tahsildar

Salla Chandra Reddy, Vs The District Collector

V.V. Narayana Reddy Vs District Collector and Magistrate

T. Narayanaswamy, S/o. Pedda Venkatesu Vs The District Collector

S.S. N.Panthulu Vs The District Collector