Dismissed

Maachi Raju Narsamma, v. Govt. of A.P

Telangana HC11 Nov 2013WP/32061/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought survey and demarcation of plots and removal of encroachment. The Court held Mandamus could not be granted without prior application and payment of fees as per circular. Petitioners were directed to file an application; subsequently, civil court remedies were noted for any encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to make an application before Respondent No.3 by paying required fees; Writ Petition disposed of.

Maachi Raju Narsamma, Vs Govt. of A.P — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32061 of 2013

¶3

Date:11.11.2013

¶4

Between: Maachi Raju Narsamma, W/o Subba Raju and two others.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

And:

¶7

The Govt of A.P., rept by its Secretary, Revenue Department. Hyderabad and four others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt C.Vani Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.4: Assistant Government Pleader for Home

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

The Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that respondent No.3 has not been taking action for survey and demarcation of the petitioners’ plots in Survey Nos.603/1, 603/2 and 603/3 of Gundavolu Village, Rapur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and not removing the encroachment by respondent No.5.

¶12

At the hearing, Smt C.Vani Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has not disputed that except making a representation, her clients have not made an application for survey and demarcation of boundaries by paying requisite fees.

¶13

Circular Rc.No.N1/6543/99, dated 25.07.2001, issued by the Special Commissioner and Director, Survey, Settlements and Land Records under

¶14

para-20 to Board Standing Order 34-A, has laid down the procedure for survey and demarcation of the private lands whenever a request in that regard is made by the owners of the lands on payment of survey charges. As the petitioners have admittedly not followed this procedure, no Mandamus can be issued at this stage for survey and demarcation of boundaries of the petitioners’ plots. The petitioners are permitted to make an application before respondent No.3 by paying the required fees for survey and demarcation of the lands. If such application is filed, respondent No.3 shall consider and take appropriate action in terms of the above-mentioned Circular. In the event, it is found that respondent No.5 has unauthorizedly occupied any part of the lands belonging to them, the petitioners shall be free to approach the competent civil Court against respondent No.5.

¶15

Subject to the above directions and with liberty to the petitioners as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.39863 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 11^th November, 2013 DR

Maachi Raju Narsamma, v. Govt. of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maachi Raju Narsamma, v. Govt. of A.P

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

G.Deepak Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Dumpala Venkata Subbamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Manohar, S/o. K.Rama Swamy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bolukonda Vivek Sagar, Vs The District Collector

M/s.Yashoda Infrastructure Projects (P) Ltd., office flat No Vs The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh