Petitioners challenged a nullifying survey endorsement by land authorities. Court directed respondent authority to reconcile conflicting survey reports, issue notice to all parties, and pass an order specifically locating the disputed plot before adjudicating correctness. Interim petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26346 of 2013
Dated: 10.09.2013
Between:
Bajini Veeraiah and another.
and
The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Khammam, Khammam District, and 6 others.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP for Revenue
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by a cryptic endorsement of respondent No.1 stated to have been made on the letter in Rc.No.B1/2002/2013, dated 15.04.2013, addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 and proceedings in Rc.No.A9/578/2013, dated 16.05.2013, of respondent No.1.
The petitioners claim to be the owners of Ac.4.01 gts of patta land situated in Sy.No.93 of Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam District, having succeeded to the same from their father. It is their further case that out of the said land, an extent of 2 ½ acres was acquired for the purpose of construction of Nagarjuna Sagar Project (NSP) main canal in the year 1970; that another extent of 0.13 gts was acquired by the Government in the year 1978 for the purpose of construction of NSP major branch canal; that out of the balance extent, Ac.20.05 gts was again acquired for the purpose of formation of by-pass road in the year 2000 and that the remaining land is in the occupation of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they are presently left with 0.28 gts of land.
The petitioners alleged that respondent No.7, who is working as a Home Guard in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Khammam, has created a patta certificate in respect of 100 sq. yards of land as if the same is situated in Sy.No.94 and was trying to encroach upon the petitioners’ land in Sy.No.93. The petitioners have, therefore, approached respondent Nos.4 and 5 with a request to cause survey.
That respondent No.3 has inspected the land in question after notice to the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 and 7 and submitted a report on 08.04.2013 addressed to respondent No.4, wherein he has stated that the house plot claimed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 is in Sy.No.93/3/1 belonging to the petitioners. Thereafter respondent No.4 has addressed letter, dated 15.04.2013, to respondent No.5. In the said letter, it is mentioned that respondent No.5 has submitted his report stating that tippons are not available for demarcation of the land, that respondent No.3 was requested to demarcate the land and that respondent No.3 has submitted his report dated 08.04.2013 wherein he observed that the disputed land falls in S.No.93/3/1 and the same was enclosed for further action. The petitioners further pleaded that subsequent thereto, respondent No.1 intervened and made the above-mentioned endorsement on 22.04.2013 and issued a substantive proceedings on 16.05.2013, wherein he has referred to the field inspection and demarcation work in Sy.Nos.88, 93 and 94 and observed that after field inspection, the open plot falls in Sy.No.94 to an extent of 128 sq. yards. The petitioners felt aggrieved by this opinion expressed by respondent No.1.
From the facts noted above, it is evident that respondent No.3, based on the direction of respondent No.4, conducted a survey with the aid of location sketch, tippon etc. and demarcated the boundary, identified the disputed land and found that the same is situated in Sy.No.93/3/1. However, in the communication, dated 16.05.2013, of respondent No.1, he has referred to the purported field inspection and demarcation work done by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and opined that the open plot falls in Sy.No.94. Respondent No.1 does not appear to have reconciled the report of respondent No.3 with the contradictory finding of respondent Nos.2 and 3. According to the petitioners, the communication, dated 16.05.2013, was only with a view to nullify the survey work done by respondent No.3 in order to favour respondent Nos.6 and 7. A perusal of
the report, dated 08.04.2013, of respondent No.3 and the communication, dated 16.05.2013, of respondent No.1 shows that there is a direct conflict between these two documents. If respondent No.3 has already conducted survey and demarcated the land with the aid of tippon, location sketch etc., it is not known as to how a different conclusion was arrived at relating to the survey number, in which the disputed land is located, based on a subsequent inspection of respondent Nos.2 and 3. As no order adverse to the interests of the petitioners has been passed by any of the official respondents so far, it is unnecessary for this Court to adjudicate on the correctness or otherwise of the communication, dated 16.05.2013, at this stage. However, respondent No.5 is directed to consider the report of respondent No.3, while dealing with the communication of respondent No.1, and pass an appropriate order giving specific finding as to survey number in which the plot claimed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 is located. Before passing such an order, respondent No.5 shall issue notice to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.6 and 7 and allow both parties to submit the material in support of their respective pleas. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the order that may be passed by respondent No.5, they shall be free to file a civil suit.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.32576 of 2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J
10.09.2013 v v
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to adjudicate on the correctness of the government communication that conflicts with the survey report when no adverse order has yet been passed.
Whether to direct the respondent authority to reconcile conflicting survey findings and issue notice to parties before passing an order.
Whether the petitioners can be directed to pursue a civil suit in case they are aggrieved by the subsequent order.
Bajini Veeraiah and another
The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Khammam
6 others
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
