Disposed

Annapaneni Appa Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector

Telangana HC8 Jul 2014WP/16370/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order directed the Third Respondent to expeditiously examine alleged boundary errors in a land survey under Board Standing Orders 34-B and take appropriate action after seeking Collector approval.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Third Respondent to take appropriate action under B.S.O.34-B expeditiously.

Annapaneni Appa Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana, Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.16370 of 2014

¶2

ORDER

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶4

2. Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of an agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3.44 cents in Sy.No.67/8 situated at Ayyapurajugudem Village, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District. While the petitioners are stated to be in enjoyment of the said land, a survey appears to have been conducted, and according to the petitioners, they were not given any notice of the survey conducted with regard to the land in Sy.Nos.67/7 and 67/6. Petitioners, therefore, state that while conducting the said survey to the adjacent land, certain errors have crept in the boundaries and the survey map and they obtained a field sketch of the said survey. In their representation, dated 05.07.2013, they made a request to the Tahsildar under Board Standing Orders 34-B of Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders.

¶5

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in spite of the said representation, the inaction on the part of the third respondent has compelled the petitioners to approach this Court. A copy of the representation of the petitioners is annexed to the writ petition under Ex.P-1, which shows the particulars of errors and mistakes alleged by them in the said survey conducted.

¶6

4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the third respondent will act in terms of B.S.O.34-B of the Orders referred to above. Clause 7 of B.S.O.34-B of the Orders shows that the procedure with regard to the correction of errors is required to be followed and that the Tahsildar has to examine the same and then, after seeking approval of the Collector with regard to the errors pointed out, he will have to refer the matter for appropriate action with the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records.

¶7

5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the pendency of petitioners’ application seeking correction since 05.07.2013, it is just and appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the third respondent to take appropriate action under B.S.O.34-B of the Orders referred to above, expeditiously.

¶8

6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶9

_______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶10

8^th July, 2014 sj

Annapaneni Appa Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annapaneni Appa Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District 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

Sri Ommi Dali Naidu, S/o Chinnama Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sathyamurthy Vs The Joint Collector

Cte Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Vs The District Collector

Mandla Guramma W/o. Raosanna Vs The Revenue Divisional officer, Jammalamadugu

M/s Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd. Vs The Govt. of A.P

S.Narayan Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh