Dismissed

Salendri Srisailam v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector

Telangana HC28 Sept 2012WP/3462/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a notice for demarcation of adjacent lands, alleging it threatened previously fixed boundaries. The court found no illegality in the notice and dismissed the petition while vacating an interim stay order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; Interim order dated 17.02.2010 in WPMP No.4524 of 2010 vacated.

Salendri Srisailam Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.3462 of 2010

¶3

Date:28th September, 2012

¶4

Between: Salendri Srisailam S/o.Sattaiah

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

Government of A.P., rep. by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad & Ors.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶11

Writ Petition No.3462 of 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Challenge in this writ petition is to the notice, dated 23.01.2010, issued by the Inspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, whereunder the petitioner has been informed about demarcation of Survey Nos.825, 826, 827 and 828, situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of lands bearing Survey Nos.829 and 834 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal,

¶15

Ranga Reddy District. He submitted an application on 09.03.2009 to the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, to cause survey of the land in Survey Nos.829 and 834. Since the respondents failed to act on his representation, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9321 of 2009. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 30.04.2009 directing the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to conduct survey of the land bearing Survey Nos.829 and 834 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of six weeks. The survey has been conducted pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.9321 of 2009 and boundaries have been fixed for the land bearing Survey Nos.829 and 834. The 4^th respondent submitted an application to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad-2^nd respondent for demarcation of his lands bearing Survey Nos.825, 826, 827 and 828, situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Thereupon, the Inspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, issued a notice to the petitioner as well as others directing them to be present at the field on 04.02.2010 at 10.30 A.M. for demarcation of the Survey Nos.825, 826, 827 and 828, situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said notice is assailed in this writ petition.

¶16

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents under the guise of demarcation of Survey Nos.825, 826, 827 and 828, situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are contemplating to disturb the boundaries fixed to the land bearing Survey Nos.829 and 834. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer para.11 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and it is thus:

¶17

“11. The petitioner herein is respectfully submits that once the survey is conducted and the land of the petitioner is demarked under valid panchanama, the same cannot be either altered or re-conduct survey. The petitioner further submits that the respondents at the behest of the people who are inimical to the

¶18

petitioner, have issuing notices under the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act even without referring Survey number of the petitioner’s land so as to create dispute among the land owners. In the said circumstances, that too even after submission of representations from time to time, as respondents 2 and 3 are going ahead with the survey and trying to give a go by to the earlier survey proceedings and cause unjust enrichment of the third parties under a guise of the impugned notices. The petitioner was constrained to file a WP in this Hon’ble Court. Once the respondents are permitted to proceed with the survey under the impugned notice and finalise the proceedings there is every likelihood of cancellation or alteration to the Boundaries already fixed on the application of the petitioner.”

¶19

4. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 17.02.2010. An interim order came to be passed vide WPMP No.4524 of 2010 on the even date directing the respondents not to conduct survey in the land held by the petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.05 guntas in S.No.829 and an extent of Ac.2.00 in S.No.834 of Mankhal Village of Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and not to disturb the boundary stones already fixed, pending further orders.

¶20

5. P.Narasimha Rao-4^th respondent filed WPMP No.36480 of 2010 seeking his impleadment as party respondent and the said WPMP came to be allowed on 18.04.2012. He also moved WVMP No.1542 of 2010 seeking to vacate the interim order, dated 17.02.2010, passed in W.P.M.P.No.4524 of 2010.

¶21

6. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶23

8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of Ac.1.03 guntas, situated

¶24

in Survey Nos.829 and 834 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and survey has been conducted with regard to the said land and boundaries have been fixed pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.9321 of 2009 and therefore, the respondents cannot resurvey the land under the guise of acting on the representation of the 4^th respondent with regard to the survey of his land bearing Survey Nos.825, 826, 827 and 828, situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is also contended by him that the petitioner filed O.S.No.552 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the 4^th respondent and others and the said suit is pending, wherein the rights of the parties are required to be settled.

¶25

9. Learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent contended that the petitioner had shown the large extent in Survey Nos.829 and 834 by manipulating the records and basing on the manipulated entries, proceeded to execute various documents with the assistance of the Surveyor viz., Bikshapathi and the said Bikshapathi has been facing disciplinary proceedings. It is also contended by him that the proceedings of the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, dated 03.11.2010, details the extents of Survey Nos.829 and 834. Learned counsel took me to the proceedings No.D5/1347/2010, dt.03.11.2010, of the Joint CollectorI, Ranga Reddy District, and the text of which, reads as hereunder:

¶26

“The applicants vide reference 1^st cited have represented that they are the owners and Ac.13.22 pattedars of the land in Sy.No.827 and 828 which is adjacent to Sy.No.829 and 834 of Mankhal village of Maheshwaram Mandal. Further, one Sri Sailandar Srisailam and others trespassed in their land claiming Ac.11.36 gts. in Sy.No.834 & Ac.13.22 gts. in Syl.No.829 of Mankhal village who intentionally tampered the related documents and pass books of the said Sy.Nos. in the MRO office and changed the extents in Sy.No.834 (Ac.8.36 gts.) converted to Ac.11.36 gts and Sy.No.829 (Ac.10.22 gts converted to Ac.13.22 gts.) which is evident from the pahanies. By tampering the records and increasing their extents in the above Sy.Nos. trying to trespass into their land and requested this office to correct the records to its original extents by

¶27

canceling the documents in Sy.No.834 and 829 and also Pattadar Pass Books issued in favour of the Sri Sailandar and her daughter. After personal enquiry, the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal has reported that, on verification of revenue records i.e., Pahanies for the year 1955-58 to 2006-07 the extent of the Sy.Nos.829 and 834 differ in the various years. Further, as reported by the Assistant Director, S & L.R. the original sethwar is not available and the wasool Baqui loose papers are in dilapidated condition. The pucca book papers are available in respect of Sy.Nos.823 to 829 and the 834 the details are hereunder:

¶28

As per the Wasool Baqui loose papers 1334 Fasli:

¶29

Sy. No.	Old No.	Sarkari/Inam	Khatadar	Balance Area
829	504	Sarkari	Syed Khaja Gulam	10-22
834	509	-do-	Mustafa Khan Saheb	8-36

¶30

As per the Pucca Book 1324 Fasli:

¶31

Sy. No	Old Sy.No.	Khatadar	Balance
			Area
829	504	--	10-22
834	509	---	8.36

¶32

The pucca book entries truly reflect the extents of a Survey Number and it is based on this the extents are ultimately confirmed. The pucca book entries as available are for S.No.829 the extent is Ac.10-22 and for S.No.834, the extent is Ac.8-36.

¶33

Further it is stated that, the Chesala for the year 1957-58 and Pahanies for the year 1963-64, 1973-74, 1982-83 clearly shows that the extent of the Sy.Nos.829, 834 is tampered and prayed to accord permission to rectify the revenue record in the above said Survey Numbers.

¶34

In view of the above, permission is accorded to the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal to rectify the extents of the land in respect of Sy.No.829 & 834 of Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District and correct the records after issuing notice to all concerned, keeping in view of the entries made in pucca book which is a true reflection of extents of each survey number.”

¶35

10. I have gone through the notice impugned in the Writ Petition. The Inspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, issued notice not only to the petitioner, but also to others, who are adjacent owners to the land bearing Survey Nos.825, 826, 827 and 828, situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Indisputably, the petitioner is owner of the lands in Survey No.829 and 834, which is adjacent to the lands which are to be surveyed basing on the representation of

¶36

Smt.G.Nagamani and others. There is no illegality or irregularity in the notice issued by the Inspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, requiring the petitioner to be present at the time of survey, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. The interim order, dated 17.02.2010, passed in WPMP No.4524 of 2010, shall stand vacated. No costs.

¶38

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶39

Date:28^th September, 2012. cs

¶40

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶41

Writ Petition No.3462 of 2010

¶42

Date:28th September, 2012

Salendri Srisailam v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salendri Srisailam v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector

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

Srinivasa Real Estate Purchasers Welfare Association Vs K. Ravinder Reddy

Saladi Satyanarayana Vs Anisetti Nageswara Rao

D.Madan Mohan Reddy Vs K.Shiva Shankar Reddy

Mukkara Changaiah Vs The District Collector

Akula Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs T. Srinivasulu

Srikanth , Viswakanth, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh