Disposed

D. Srinivasa Raju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Nov 2024WP/31386/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging survey notices issued for land possession and objections raised by petitioners, the High Court held that since rights of appeal were provided by circular instructions of the Chief Commissioner, appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to avail such appeals rather than granting the relief sought in the writ.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to avail remedy by filing an appeal as provided under the circular instructions issued by the Chief Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records.

D. Srinivasa Raju Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

I\4ONDAY,THE ELEVENTH^{DAYOF NOVEMAER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:3'1386OF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 D Srinivasa Raiu. Sio. Late Nancharaiah'^{aged 43 yrs., Occ- Business,Fi/o'} f-r. rrf ,j.+-i s6, xoii'guOem^{Village,Tekulapally Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem} District.

¶9

2 Smt. D.Wiavanthi. Wo. D.Srinivasa^{Raju. aged 38 yrs, Occ- Business,R/o'} H.N;.;-i6'6,1K"viiluoem^{Vitlage,TekulapallvIr/andal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem} District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS '\

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep by Principal Secretary, RevenueDepartment} Secretariat Buildings,^Hyderabad

¶13

2 TheAssistantDirector,surveyandLandRecords,Tekulapally,BhadradriKothagudem District.

¶14

3 The Deputy Director of Survey,^{Tekulapally, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.}

¶15

4 The Mandal Surveyor,^{Tekulapally,thadradri-KothagudemDistrict'}

¶16

5 The Assistant Mandal^{Surveyor,Tekulapally'}

¶17

..+ ...RESPONDENTS'

¶18

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High court maybe} pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthe nature of writ of Mandamus,^{or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction'} Jectaring the action^{of the respondent action of the respondent No.2 in issuing} notices iide 24.10.2024^{and1511O12O24directingthe respondentsto consider my} oOjJion. in accordance^{with law and put on me notice further any steps taken by} the official respondents^{in pursuance of the petitioners land in an extent of Ac.0-32} ct"., in sy.tto.+0,^{Koyagudemviilage, Tekutapalty tvlandat,Bhadradri-} XoihagrOe.'Oistrict as^{illegil,arbitraryand without jurisdictionand set aside the} same;nd further direct^{the respondents to conduct the survey of the petitionersin} ine property to the extent^{of Ac.o_32 Gts.,in .46 (premises bearing No.5-312113)} of Koyagudem Village,^{Tekulapally Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District}

¶19

I \

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 202,1

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to conduct any survey without taking into consideration and objections raised by the petitioners herein pertains to land in an extent of Ac.O- 32 Gts., in Sy.Nc,.46. Koyagudem Village, Tekulapally Mandal, BhadradriKothagudem District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAMAKOTAIAH KANDALA

¶23

Counsel for the l?espondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.31386 of 2024

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶29

India, is liled seeking the following relief:

¶30

"..-.,o issre an approprtate uit, order^{or directton more particularlAone} in tlY nature of Writ of Mandam s or ang oth.er aPPropiate wit^orderor direction declaing the action of the respondent^action of^{the respond.ent} No.2 in tssuing notices vide 24.10.2024 and^{15.10-2024 direct{ngthe} respondents to consider mg objections in accardance utith laut and^put on me notice further ang steps taken bg the offrcial^{respondentsin} pursuqnce of the petitioners land in an enefi of Ac.0-32 Gts in Sg.No.46 Koyaqtdem Village,^Tehtlapally MandaL Bhadradi-Kothagudem Distict as illegal arbitrqry and. uithout^jurbdbtion and set^{asid.e the sameand} furttler^{direct tle respondents to condct the surteA of the petitioners in} the properTA to the extent of Ac.0-32 Gts in Sy.No.46^(premises beaing No.5-312/13) of Kogagudem Villagte, TelotLopally Mandal, Bhadradi Kotharydem Distnct..^. .'

¶31

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the^parties and perused the record.

¶32

It is stated that the father of tlre petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-32 guntas in Sy.No.46 Koyagudem Village, Tekulapally Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, and since the date of purchase, he is in^peaceful possession of the same and the revenue authorities have recorded his name in all the revenue records as pattadar and owner of the above said property. The case of the petitioner is that when the respondents are interfering with his peaceful possession, he Iiled

¶33

¶34

W.P.No.8623 of 2024 and this Court by order, dated O3.O4.2O24 directed the District Collector to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action against respondent No.2-Tahsildar therein.

¶35

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submitted that before conducting survey, notice has been served upon the petitioners and in their presence, the .boundaries have been fixed. I-earned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved witll regard to localization or f-rxation of the boundaries, they are having a right to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Oflicer as per the circular instructions issued by the Chief Commissioner, Srlrvey,r Settlement ancl [.and Records for the demarcaLion by the Deputy Inspector of Surveys of concerned Revenue Division. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that if the parties are aggrievt:d by the proceedings of the Depu$r Inspector of Survey, may file ser:ond appeal, il so desired before the Assistalt Director for demarczition by the lnspector of Survey of District maintenance unit and the Inspector of Survey shall conduct demarcation after approval.

¶36

Since a right of appeal has been provided by the various circulars issucd by the Chief Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and [,and Records, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this

¶37

¶38

¶39

writ petition granting riberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies by filing an appeal as provided under the circular instructions issued by the Chief Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, from time to time.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

SD/. K.SREERAMA^MURTHY ASS STANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTloN oFFlcER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings,} Hyderabad

¶48

2 The Assistant Director,^{Survey and Land Records, Tekulapally, Bhadradri-} Kothagudem District.

¶49

3 The Deputy Director^{of Survey, Tekulapally, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District'}

¶50

4 The Mandal Surveyor,^{Tekulapally, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District'} The Assistant^{lvlandalSurveyor, Tekulapally,}

¶51

6 One CC to SRl.^{RAIr,/AKOTAIAHKANDALAAdvocate [OPUCI}

¶52

7 Two CCs to GP^{FOR REVENUE} 'High^{Court for the State of Telangana'} tourl

¶53

Two CD Copies

KKS GJP

?n6-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 111112024

ORDER

WP.No.31386 of 2024

1ti E Sf,.t] ,;
,?
,1'
:) l}
0i ri ?0'fi
Itlr- ,r
g.c;p1r iir5

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

Vl'--<

D. Srinivasa Raju v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Srinivasa Raju 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 R.Prakash Vs Sri. Dr.S.Harish, I.A.S.

Eppakaayala Malleasham Vs the State of Telangana

Kesineni Devolopers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dr. Jitender, IPS

Sri. Yalamanchilli Suresh and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 13 Others

Countryside Realtors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Tgrera)

Lekkala Vittal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana