Dismissed

Dr. K. Gopichand, S/o. late K. Seethaiah, v. The District Collector, Chittoor District.

Telangana HC8 Nov 2013WP/19966/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition seeking restoration of possession for a boundary dispute. The bench ordered official respondents not to interfere, directing petitioners to file an appeal against the survey report if dissatisfied and to approach the Civil Court for possession disputes, disposing of the matter as no adjudication was needed. The principal writ and connected interim writ

What did the court decide?

Direction to official respondents not to interfere in the dispute; liberty to petitioners to appeal the survey report or approach Civil Court for possession.

Dr. K. Gopichand, S/o. late K. Seethaiah, Vs The… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.19966 of 2013

¶2

Date : 8-11-2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Dr. K. Gopichand and others .. Petitioners

¶5

And

¶6

The District Collector, Chittoor District and others .. Respondents

¶7

Counsel for petitioners : Sri D. Rajasekhar for Sri J. Sudheer Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Assistant Government Pleader

¶8

for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9 : Assistant Government Pleader

¶9

for Home Counsel for respondent No.10 : Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy

¶10

The Court made the following :

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the Revenue officials to conduct reconciliation between the petitioners and respondent No.10 and put the petitioners back in possession of Ac.5-35 cents out of Ac.6-01 cents in Sy.No.66/1 of Kothapalyam village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District (for short “the subject land).

¶13

I have heard Sri D. Rajasekhar, learned Counsel for appearing for Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.10.

¶14

The petitioners pleaded that they are the owners and possessors of the subject land. They have alleged that respondent No.10, whose wife is a former Central Minister and purchased the neighbouring lands, has prevailed upon the Revenue officials and illegally removed the fence with the help of the Police and encroached upon the petitioners’ land.

¶15

Though no counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

¶16

Revenue (Assignments) and the learned Counsel for respondent No.10 have advanced their submissions. Both the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners are the owners the subject land while respondent No.10 is the owner of Ac.5-00, both parties having purchased their respective lands from a common owner i.e., V.V. Savitri Ammal. They have further stated that out of Ac.5-35 cents, an extent of Ac.0-11 cents belonging to the petitioners has been taken over in road widening and Ac.0-07 cents of land of respondent No.10 was acquired for the same purpose and that as at present, the petitioners are left with Ac.5-24 cents and respondent No.10 is left with Ac.4-93 cents. It is further submitted that as there is a serious boundary dispute, survey was conducted and a report was submitted to the District Collector on 1-7-2013. Both the learned Counsel have strongly refuted the plea of the petitioners that any part of the land belonging to the petitioners has been illegally occupied by respondent No.10.

¶17

In the light of the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.10, I am of the opinion that no further adjudication of the Writ Petition is needed, except giving a direction to the official respondents Nos.1 to 9 not to interfere with the dispute between the petitioners on the one side and respondent No.10 on the other in any

¶18

manner in respect of the above mentioned lands in future. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the survey, they can file an appeal before the appellate authority as per Circular No.N1/16543/99, dated 25-7-2001 issued by the Special Commissioner and Director, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad. To facilitate the petitioners to file an appeal, respondent No.3 is directed to furnish a copy of the survey report to the petitioners as well as respondent No.10, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the petitioners feel that respondent No.10 is in occupation of any part of their lands, they shall be free to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. Subject to the liberty given to the petitioners and the directions given as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.24469 and 24470 of 2013 filed for interim reliefs are disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶20

Date :8-11-2013 AM

Dr. K. Gopichand, S/o. late K. Seethaiah, v. The District Collector, Chittoor District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. K. Gopichand, S/o. late K. Seethaiah, v. The District Collector, Chittoor District.

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 Satyakrishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Hafiz Meerja Mohammed Bai, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Syed Khaja, Vs A.P. State Wakf Board

G.Deepak Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dumpala Venkata Subbamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.P. Hemalatha, Vs The Govt of a.P., Rep by its Prl. Secretary