Dismissed

Mohd. Jameel, S/o Mohd. Jaffer, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC30 Oct 2013WP/31004/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a land survey on grounds that touching tombs would hurt Muslim sentiments. The court held that since a Division Bench permitted the survey and it was conducted without affecting sentiments, the petition failed.

What did the court decide?

None. Petitioner not entitled to declare survey illegal; retained liberty to avail of statutory remedy of appeal.

Mohd. Jameel, S/o Mohd. Jaffer, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31004 of 2013

¶3

Date:30.10.2013

¶4

Between: Mohd. Jameel, S/o Mohd. Jaffer

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and 11 others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Someswara Kumar

¶10

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri Mir Masood Khan

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not been issuing notice to the petitioner before holding survey.

¶13

A perusal of the record shows that respondent Nos.6 to 12 have filed Writ Petition No.11375 of 2013 seeking issue of Mandamus to direct the official respondents to conduct survey of land admeasuring Ac.0.34 guntas in Survey No.112/1 and Ac.1.36 guntas in Survey No.114/1 of Medchal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. A learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the said Writ Petition by order, dated 16.04.2013, on the reasoning that no statutory provision exists under which the writ petitioners were entitled to

¶14

seek survey. The said order was questioned in Writ Appeal No.871 of 2013. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment, dated 06.09.2013, allowed the said Writ Appeal with the observation that there is no harm if a survey is undertaken at the instance of private individuals upon payment of requisite costs and expenses. However, taking note of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the Writ Appeal that there is a likelihood of law and order problem, the learned Division Bench observed that respondent No.1 shall persuade the community concerned by assuring that nothing will be touched and only survey will be conducted without attempting to injure the sentiments of any person.

¶15

After the disposal of the said Writ Appeal, the petitioner made a representation before respondent No.2, wherein he has strongly objected for conducting survey on the ground that the sentiments of the muslims will be seriously hurt if such survey is conducted. As respondent Nos.3 and 4 went ahead with the survey, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

¶16

At the hearing, Sri K.Someswara Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while there can be no objection for mere survey, as the tombs in the grave yard will be touched during survey, the sentiments of the muslim community will be affected.

¶17

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana area) submitted that following the order passed in the Writ Appeal referred to above, respondent No.3 has issued notice to the petitioner and other members of the muslim community in the locality and held as many as three meetings, wherein he has tried to persuade them to agree for the survey proposed to be held keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the above-mentioned Writ Appeal and that on 19.10.2013 the survey was conducted without affecting

¶18

the sentiments of the members of the muslim community. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously disputed this submission.

¶19

Inasmuch as a Division Bench of this Court has permitted survey to be held and such survey having already been held, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of relief claimed in the Writ Petition, namely to declare the conduct of survey in Survey Nos.112/1 and 114/2 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the result of the survey, he can question the same by availing the remedy of appeal as provided in Circular Rc.No.N1/6543/99, dated 25.07.2001, issued by the Special Commissioner and Director, Survey, Settlements and Land Records under para-20 to Board Standing Order 34-A.

¶20

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Writ petition is dismissed.

¶21

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.38510 of 2013 is dismissed as infructuous.

¶22

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶23

30^th October, 2013 DR

Mohd. Jameel, S/o Mohd. Jaffer, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Jameel, S/o Mohd. Jaffer, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Madan Mohan Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

B. lylamma Vs The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.

Sri Usala Chenchurama Naidu,Poosala Chenchu Vs The Office of the District Collector

Mustafa Ali Vs The State of a. P

Chakilam Lalitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Nadella Jayamma Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by its the Chief