Disposed

K.Rama Krishna Raju v. Joint Collector

Telangana HC29 Jan 2013WP/14493/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition questioning respondent inaction on a representation regarding land survey and demarcation. The court declined to adjudicate land status and directed respondents to consider the representation after clarification.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 04.09.2002 and pass appropriate orders within two months.

K.Rama Krishna Raju Vs Joint Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.14493 of 2003

¶6

Between:

¶7

K.Ramakrishna Raju and others … Petitioners And Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶10

W.P. No.14493 of 2003

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Questioning inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent, Deputy Director, in considering the petitioners’ representation dated 04.09.2002, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶13

Sri G.K. Raju, is GPA holder of the petitioners 1 to 3.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased the land to an extent of 2661.99 or 2662 square yards, which is equivalent to Ac.0.22 guntas through three registered sale deeds dated

¶15

16, 17 and 25.03.1982, from their vendors. It is stated that when they came to know that the said land is indicated as Government land by the 2^nd respondent, Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, they submitted legal petition on 26.04.1983 for correction of Town Survey Records of Survey No.113 of Khairatabad Village. Thereafter, on 26.08.1983 spot inspection was conducted and after contesting the matter before the Joint Collector, eventually,

¶16

he issued Memo dated 05.07.1984 to the Deputy Director (S&LR) Hyderabad duly certifying that the Survey No.113 was shown wrongly as Government land in Town Survey Records.

¶17

While so, the petitioners made a representation to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to provide them approach road since the Survey No.113 does not have an approach road.

¶18

In response to the said representation, the 3^rd respondent, Chief City Planner, asked the petitioners to get the Survey No.113

¶19

demarcated by the 2^nd respondent in MCH. Therefore, the petitioners addressed a letter dated 11.07.1991 to the

¶20

2^nd respondent with a request to demarcate the Survey No.113 of Khairatabad Village with clear boundaries, in response to which, the petitioners were informed by the 2^nd respondent vide Memo dated 21.07.1991 that the said file is under enquiry and investigation by the Commissioner of Enquiries and for that reason demarcation, at that stage, was not possible. Thereafter also the petitioners made representations for which also, they received the same reply that the matter is under investigation by the Government. Subsequently, the petitioners, through their GPA holder made another representation dated 04.09.2002 to the

¶21

1^st respondent, Joint Collector, requesting for instructions to the concerned officers for the survey and demarcation of the land in Survey No.113 in an extent of Ac.0.22 guntas in Ward No. 8 of Khairatabad Village, situated at Yenugula Kunta, but the

¶22

1^st respondent did not pass any orders thereon. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶23

On behalf of the 2^nd respondent, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the subject land was surveyed during town survey operations, conducted under the provisions of A.P. Survey and boundaries Act, 1923 as T.S. No.3/3 and recorded as ‘G’ Burial Ground with an extent of 1456 square meters.

¶24

After completing the survey, notification under Section 13 of Survey and Boundaries Act was published in the District Gazette No.60 dated 25.09.1976. According to the said Act, any person aggrieved by the entries in Town Survey records can file a civil suit within three years, from the date of Gazette notification under Section 13 of the Survey and Boundaries as provided under Section 14 of the Act. In the instant case, no one filed the civil suit within the said period.

¶25

It is further stated that based on the petition filed by the petitioners, the then Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad District corrected the entry of ‘G’ Hindu Burial Ground as patta in favour of the applicants for Survey No.113 correlated to T.S. No.3/3 under Section 87 of A.P. (T.A) L.R. Act 1317 Fasli.

¶26

In this regard, it is stated that the town survey was conducted under the provisions of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act 1923 and this Act was extended to Telangana Area with effect from 01.08.1959 vide A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act (Extension and Amendment) Act of 1958. This Act does not contain any provision regarding correction of the entries made in the Town Survey records after the finalization and notification under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, the then Deputy Direcot, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad District had no jurisdiction to go into the question of correction in Town Survey records and Section 87 of A.P. (TA) L.R. Act 1317 Fasli cannot be invoked for this purpose. Prima facie, entertaining the application under Section 87 of Land Records Act is not maintainable and the remedy is only filing a civil suit under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Eventually, it is stated that the petitioners did not submit any representation dated 04.09.2002 to the 2^nd respondent and sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶27

As could be seen from the relief sought for in this writ petition, the petitioners made a representation dated 04.09.2002 to the 1^st respondent, and though the matter pertains to the year of 2003, the 1^st respondent did not choose to file any counter, and no orders have been passed thereon.

¶28

The main grievance of the petitioners is that they purchased the subject land from its lawful owners. When they came to know that the said land was indicated as Government land in the Town Survey and

¶29

Land Records, they filed a petition and eventually got it corrected as private patta land. While so, when the petitioners made another representation seeking to provide approach road, the authorities informed them that the matter is under investigation by the Government. Thereafter, the petitioners made another representation dated 04.09.2002 to the 1^st respondent requesting him to instruct the concerned officers to survey and demarcate the land in question but no orders have been passed thereon. Hence, they filed the present writ petition questioning inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the said representation.

¶30

In the counter affidavit, filed by the 2^nd respondent, categorically stated that the town survey was conducted under the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and this Act was extend to Telangana Area with effect from 01.08.1959 vide A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, (Extension and Amendment) Act of 1958 and this Act does not contain any provision regarding correction of the entries made in the Town Survey records after finalization and notification under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, the then Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad District had no jurisdiction to go into the question of correction in Town Survey records and the remedy is only to file a civil suit under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Therefore, the Town Survey records classified the subject land as ‘G’ Hindu Burial Ground and the said entry has been validated under Section 13 of Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Thus, as per the said Act, the Section 13, entries in Town Survey Land Register cannot be corrected until a decree is passed by the competent civil Court as stipulated under Section 14 of Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.

¶31

Since the relief sought for in the instant writ petition is that the authorities did not consider the representation made by the petitioners,

¶32

this Court is not inclined to go into the aspect whether the subject land is Government or private patta land. Further,

¶33

it is to be noted here that the 2^nd respondent categorically stated in the counter that no representation dated 04.09.2002 has been made to him. From a perusal of the material on record,

¶34

it is noticed that the said representation is addressed to the

¶35

1^st respondent, Joint Collector. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to make available the said representation to the 2^nd respondent and thereupon, the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders,

¶36

in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶39

Date: 29.01.2013 LSK

K.Rama Krishna Raju v. Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rama Krishna Raju v. Joint Collector

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

Mohd.Habeeb (Died) Per Lr Smt. Habeebunnisa w/o.Habeeb Vs The Sarpanch

V.Rajeswari, W/o Late v.Mohan Rao Vs Mr. J.Pratap Reddy

Nalla Judson Vs Jayaraj

Kunduru Indira Devi (died) per L.R. K.Venkat Reddy Vs v.Kanakaiah (died) per L.Rs. 2 to 4

Smt. Laxmi Bai, Vs Sri T.N. Astana

M.a.Gaffar Vs Sri R.Muthyala Raju