Partly allowed

Degam Sayanna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Dec 2023WP/22336/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed by a land owner challenging the failure of revenue officials to conduct a survey and demarcation of his land. The court directs Respondents 4 to 6 to complete the survey as per the issued notice within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Informed directing respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to conduct the survey within eight weeks after issuing notices and considering objections.

Degam Sayanna Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22336 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Degam Sayanna, S/o Narayana Aged about 47^yearc, Occ. Agriculture^Ri/o. H. No.^'l-79, Sirikonda Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The District Collector, Nizamabad District

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sirikonda Mandal,^{NizamabadDistrict}

¶14

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sirikonda^lr4andal, Nizamabad^Distrlct

¶15

The Assistant Director Survey and Land Records,^{NizamabadDistrict} 6. Deputy lnspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records^{NizamabadDistrict}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to lssue a WriUOrder/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the^{RespondentNo 5 and 6 in not} demarcating the Petitioner's land^{i.e land admeasuringAc- 1-38gts. in Sy. No.} 528 situated at Sirikonda Village and^{Mandal,NizamabadDistrictas being} illegal, arbitrary and unco nstitutional and to^{consequentlydirect the Respondent} Nos. 5 and 6 to demarcate the land admeasuring^{Ac. 1-38 gts. in Sy. No. 528} situated at Sirikonda Village and Mandal,^{Nizamabad District}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstate} d in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} lssue interim orders directing^{the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to demarcate the} land admeasuring Ac.1-38^{gts. in Sy. No. 528 situated at SirikondaVillage and} Mandal, Nizamabad District

¶20

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl. R. SUSHANTH REDDY} Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FOR REVENUE} The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.22336 of 2023

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ petition is frled seeking the following relief:

¶25

" ..... .to Issue a Wit/ Orders more particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring tte action of ttle Respondent Nos.S and 6 in not demarcating the petitioner's land. i.e. land admeasuing Ac.1-38 gts., in Sg.No.S2g, situated at Siikonda Village and Manda| Nizamabad. District as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to conseEtentlA d.irect the Respondent Nos.S and 6 to d.emarcqte the land admeasuing Ac.1-38 gts., tn Sg.No.528 situated at Sirikonda Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District and be pleo_sed to pclss.. ..."

¶26

The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 1-38 gts in Sy.No.52g, situated at Sirikonda Village ard Mandal, Nizamabad District. It is the case of the petitioner that the said property has been purchased through registered Sale Deed bearing document No.922 of 2008, dated 03.03.200g. It is the further case of the petitioner that his narne was mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings No.A2/5073/2008, dated rl.oz.2ooa ad the title deeds have also been issued to the petitioner duly making the entries in Dhara,i Portal maintained by the Revenue Department under the provisions of the Telangara Rights in lald and pattadar pass Books Act, 2020.

¶27

¶28

¶29

Mr. R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that when some of the neighbouring owners^have interfered with his peaceful possession, the^{petitionerwas constrained} to institute a suit in O.S.No.45/20 15 on the frle of the Principa-l Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor ald^after contest the said suit was decreed in favour of the^{petitionervide} Judgment and Decree dated 11.11.2022. Thereafter, the^petitioner claims to have made an application in Dharani Portal by^{paying the} requisite fees vide Challan No.63002260 10, dated^{21.O4.2O23for} conducting survey and fixation of boundaries of^the land.^{The grievance} of the petitioner is that even though notices^{have beenissued to the} petitioner as well as to all other neighbouring owners/interested persons / stakeholders, the respondents are not^proceeding with^the conduct of the survey and postponing the survey on^{one pretext or the} other.

¶30

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue^{submitsthat in} view of the recent Election Notification, all the officers have been^deputed for election duties ald there are no surveyors to conduct the^survey, therefore, they could not conduct the survey.

¶31

In view of the above submissions, this Court, deems it appropriate^to dispose of the writ petition, directing respondent Nos.4 to 6^{to conduct the}

¶32

¶33

survey in pursuance of the notice issued in Rc.No.Al/ 642/2023, d.ated, 25.05.2023, within a period of eight (o8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order duly issuing notices to the petitioner and all other interested persons a,d stakeholders a,d after considering their objections, conduct the survey, strictly in accordalce with law.

¶34

with the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

To,

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -v'

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

2.1. The The District Collector, Nizamabad Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, HyderabadDtitrict^' 3. Ihe Revenue Divisionar officer, sirikonda Mandar. Nizamabad District 4. The^{Mandat Revenue onicer,} sirit<onojniiii"i litia'maoad District 5. The Assistant Director Survey and Land R;;A;: N;;rabad District 6. Deputy tnspector of Survey,.Sg."{"1_{,J t_}^i netlio-I Nizamabad District 7. 9nu 99^{to SRt. R susHANrH} nEooi nJ"ic"i"lb:pucf 8. Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE "Flrsh fi;f;it,L"State of Tetangana. IOUT] I Two CD Copies BM GJP

¶41

HIGH COURT

¶42

DATED:0511212023

¶43

5IATE I A
1t0\ o
)>
loE st J"n
L)
.X D FsPf','"

¶44

ORDER

¶45

WP.No.22336 of 2023

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS

Degam Sayanna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Degam Sayanna v. The State of Telangana

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 Ch Giridhar Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sabiha Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Suchit R Dubey Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Ismail Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Thomas John Vs The Government of Telangana

Smt. Balusu Rajya Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana