Writ petition filed challenging the non-communication of the decision regarding an application for land subdivision. The Court held authorities must communicate results and directed communication within four weeks.
Directed Tahsildar to communicate the decision on the survey application to petitioners within four weeks of receiving a copy of this order.
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 JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR
WRI T PETI TI ON No.4969 of 2019
ORDER :
The prayer of the petitioners in this case reads as under:
‘All reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the illegal action of the respondents not considering the application of the petitioners for survey and settlement of the land measuring 0.24 guntas in survey No.2 of Himayathsagar village, Ranga Reddy District without stating any reasons is illegal arbitrary and violation of survey and settlement rules and regulations and Article 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution and consequently direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners by demarcating and survey of the land in connection with the survey No.2 of Himayathsagar village, Ranga Reddy District and pass such order or orders which ever this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.’
Perusal of the record reflects that
Sri Kuna Reddy Anji Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would place before this Court a copy of the online receipt evidencing that the first petitioner submitted a F-line petition on 13.07.2016 seeking subdivision/survey of the subject land.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, State of Telangana, would inform this Court on the strength of instructions that the revenue authorities did initiate survey proceedings in relation to the subject land but the same were not completed as some third parties were in possession of the land. He however concedes that this information was not communicated to the petitioners.
Having received an application online in accordance with the prescribed format along with the requisite fee, it is not open to the
2
revenue authorities to remain silent upon the same. The decision taken, one way or the other, would have to be communicated to the parties concerned.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to communicate the result/decision taken upon the petitioners’ application for sub-division/survey in relation to the subject land to them expeditiously and in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, be it from whatever source.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the
light of this final order. No order as to costs.
____________________
JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR
Date:12.03.2019
GJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revenue authorities are required to communicate the decision on an application for land subdivision/survey if such decision is not taken.
Whether the failure to communicate the status of the survey application constitutes a violation of constitutional rights.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
First Petitioner and others
Respondents (Revenue Authorities)
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
