Disposed

Vanamali Narasimhaswamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Nov 2012WP/30227/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought D-Form patta for land held by A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board but withheld by Tahsildar due to alleged encroachment. Court disposed of the petition, directing petitioner to apply for a survey to resolve boundary discrepancies before further proceedings. No costs awarded. Quality is thin.

What did the court decide?

Directive for survey of land to fix boundaries before granting patta if no third-party occupation is found later.

Vanamali Narasimhaswamy Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.30227 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner was granted patta in respect of 45 cents of land in Sy.No.149/1 of Ramanaiahpeta Village, Kakinada Urban Mandal, East-Godavari District by the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, the 4^th respondent herein, vide proceedings dated 10-12-2008. As per the prescribed procedure, D-Form patta is required to be issued by the Tahsildar, Kakinada Urban Mandal, the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted representations dated 05-09-2011 and 26-09-2011 to the 3^rd respondent, with a request to issue D-Form patta. His grievance is that no steps have been taken thereon.

¶5

The 3^rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. According to him, the land in Sy.No.149/1, which is said to have been assigned to the petitioner, is under encroachment of Sri Raja Rajeswari I.T.I., and in that view of the matter, D-Form patta cannot be granted.

¶6

Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶7

The petitioner filed the copy of patta/allotment, issued by the 4^th respondent, in respect of the land, referred to above. D-Form patta is required to be issued by the 3^rd respondent. It is no

¶8

doubt true that the 3^rd respondent has taken steps, soon after receiving the applications/representations of the petitioner. According to him, the land is under occupation of Sri Raja Rajeswari I.T.I. The petitioner, however, submits that the land, under the possession of the said institution, is in a different survey number. Clarity would emerge, if only a survey is conducted, in the presence of the petitioner.

¶9

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit an application/representation to the 3^rd respondent to cause survey of the land. As and when the application is filed, the 3^rd respondent shall ensure that, boundaries for the land, referred to above, are fixed. If it emerges that the land so demarcated is under the occupation of third parties, it shall be open to the respondents 3 and 4 to take necessary steps, in accordance with law.

¶10

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶12

Dt.07-11-2012.

¶13

Vanamali Narasimhaswamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanamali Narasimhaswamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Sheik Silar Vs The District Collector

Shaik Abdul Jabbar, Vs The State of A.P.

Smt. N. Suvarna, Vs The District Collector

Jasti Purna Chandra Lakshmi Sujatha Vs The District Collector

Gummuluri Muralidhara Rao, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government

d. Suresh Kumar Vs The District Collector