Allowed

Raparthy Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Nov 2024WP/4695/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition and incidental application seeking a direction to conduct a physical survey and demarcation of the petitioner's land in Survey No.294. The court directed the Assistant Director and Inspector of Survey to examine the petitioner's application and conduct the survey within eight weeks if requirements are met.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Assistant Director and Inspector of Survey to examine the petitioner's application dated 04.07.2022 and conduct survey and demarcation of the subject land within eight weeks if requireme

Raparthy Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:4695 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

AND

¶9

Raparthy Satyanarayana, S/o Late R. Nagaiah Aged about 68 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.1-106, Samsthan Narayanapur Vill andMandal Yadadri Bhongir District - 508253

¶10

...pEr.oNER

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariate, Hyderabad- 500 063.

¶12

District Collector, Yadadri Bhongir District, Bhongir, - 508116.

¶13

The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Yadadri Bhongir District 0/o. District Collector, Yadadri Bhongir District, Bhongir - 508'l 16

¶14

lnspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Yadadri Bhongir District 0/o. District Collector, Yadadri Bhongir District, Bhongir - 5081 16.

¶15

...REspoNoENrs

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order direction or writ one in the ndture of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd and 4th respondents in not conducting Physical survey and fixing the boundary in respect of land of petitioner and his family members in Sy. No. 294 lo an extent of Ac. 2-30 Gts. Situate at Mohammedabad village, Samsthan Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District as wholly illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to conduct survey and fix the boundary in respect of land of petitioner and his family members in Sy. No. 294 to an extent of Ac. 2-30 Gts. Situate at Mohammedabad village, Samsthan Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District

¶17

lA NO: 't OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section^'l 51 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 respondent no.3 and 4 to consider the application of petitioner for demarcation of land in respect of Sy. No. 294 lo an extent of Ac. 2-30 Gts. Situate

¶19

at ftilohammedabad village, Samsthan Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶20

Couasel fortho Pcttionen SRI VAt{At VISHWANATHAiI

¶21

Cotrnssl for Respondents: GP FOR RET ENUE

¶22

The Court m.de tfte follodng: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶24

UrRIT PETITION No.4695 of 2024

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare^the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not conducting^physical survey and fixing boundaries in respect^of land^of the^petitioner and his family members in Survey Noo.294 to^{an extent of} Ac.2.3O guntas situated at Mohammedabad Village,^Samsthan Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District as illegal^and arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶27

It is stated that the petitioner and his family members own different extents of land in Survey No.294, total admeasuring Ac.2.3O guntas, apart from land in other^survey numbers situated at Mohammedabad Village,^Samsthan Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District. It is further stated that there is total extent of Ac. 12.05^guntas of^land in Survey No.294 and apart from the^petitioner and^{his family} members, there are ten other persons having their^{land in} different extents in the said survey number and as^the petitioner was unable to identify his land specifically, for the

¶28

¶29

CVBR, J Wp_4695 _2024

¶30

purpose of cultivation and fencing, he was constrained to file an application dated 04.07 .2022, seeking to conduct survey and demarcation of the subject land, duly paying requisite charges. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite receipt of the said application, so far no action has been taken thereon by respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶31

This Court, vide orders dated, 22.02.2024, based on the written instructions placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, wherein it has been stated that the survey application of the petitioner was not acted upon as one Mr. Muthyala Vijay Kumar and others filed objection petition on O3.O2.2O24 and injunction order dated O2.Og.2Olg was granted by the learned Senior.Civil Judge, Nalgonda in I.A.No. 1138 of 2Ol9 in O.S.No.314 of 2019, directed the petitioner to implead one Mr. Muthyala Vijay Kumar and others who are parties to O.S.No.31 4 of 2019.

¶32

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such suit being instituted against the petitioner and also on the lands

CVBR, J wA 4695 2024

forming part of Survey No.294. Learned counsel^further submits that the petitioner submitted the application^dated 04.O7.2022 only for the purpose of identification^and localisation of the subject land and there is no dispute whatsoever over the land forming part of Survey No.294.

¶37

In view of the a-foresaid submissions, the writ^petitionis disposed of directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to examine^the application dated 04.07.2O22 submitted by the^{petitioner and if} it is found that the petitioner fulfils all the requirements,^they shall conduct survey and demarcation of the subject land,^after issuing notice to all the interested / affected persons,ⁱⁿ accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from^the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous^{petitions,ifany,} pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to^costs.

¶39

SDLP. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSlSTANT EGISTRAR

/ffRUE COPY//

SEC ON OFFICER

To, ,|

,| . The District Collector,^{YadadriBhongir District, Bhongir, - 508116'} - 2 iii; iili;"t Dlr"i,t^{ir, Srrrevand LindRecor!9,Ytdadri BholsirDistrict} Oi". Oi"irid C"ttector,^{VaaaUri ehongirDistrict, Bhongir - 5081'16} 3 ih;^{-t,i;;;i"-;i5;n er sfi", jnd" Land Records, YadadriBh-onsirDistrict} 0i;. iji;it'c"lle"tot,^{Yio"orldrrongir District,BhoIg'I - 5081I6'} 4 On"-CC io SriVanam^{Vishwanatham Advocate tqPlcl} -- , 5 i*o CCs to GP For Revenue,^{High Court for the Stateof TelanganatuuI I} 6 Two CD CoPies MBC BS 4

¶45

HIGH COU sr )

¶46

DATED: 2611112024

¶47

1 $E STAf €
(
oo 1o ll'q zffi
1t Oggcnr

ORDER

WP.No.4695 of 2024

N
1O \r

DISPOSING OF WRIT PETITION

¶52

WTHOUT COSTS

Raparthy Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raparthy Satyanarayana 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Sanga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Naheed Nusrath Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Mavoori Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana

Ramavath Dharma Vs State of Telangana

M/S.Kishoresons Investments Vs State of Telangana

Rudra Balaraju Vs The State of Telangana