HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
W.P.No.19291 of 2017
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for the following relief: "...to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents 2 to 4 in not conducting the survey of the land of an extent of Ac.0.46 Cents equivalent to 2226.4 sq. yards out of total extent of Ac.3.17 cents in Sy.No.822/1B situated in Block No.30, Alimabad Street, Rayachoty Town Municipality, YSR Kadapa District pursuant to the applications of the petitioner dated 04.09.2015 & 08.03.2016 as arbitrary, illegal, unilateral and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to survey and demarcate the boundaries in respect of the said land of an Ac.0.46 Cents equivalent to 2226.4 sq. yards out of total extent of Ac.3.17 cents in Sy.No.822/1B situated in Block No.30, Alimabad Street, Rayachoty Town Municipality, YSR Kadapa District, set aside the same and pass such other order or orders.."
This Court has heard Sri C.Raghu, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner, Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri V.R.N.Prashanth representing the unofficial respondent.
2
Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is only seeking a simple relief of Mandamus questioning the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not conducting a survey for land measuring Ac.0.46 cents equivalent to 2226.4 square yards in Sy.No.822/1B of Rayachoty. Learned senior counsel submits that two applications were made on 04.09.2015 and on 08.03.2016. The requisite challan was also paid. Despite the same, he submits that the action was not taken. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct and complete the survey as per the provisions of the A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.
In reply to this, Sri V.R.N.Prashanth argues the matter at length. According to the learned counsel, the claim of the petitioner is for survey in land measuring Ac.0.46 cents out of Ac.3.17 cents in Sy.No.822, which has now become Sy.No.822/1B. According to him, the entire land of Sy.No.822/1B comprising Ac.3.17 cents has been converted into house plots and that there is no vacant bit of land available. He also points out that a reading of the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed would make it clear 3 that notices were admitted to be issued by the survey authorities, but in view of the serious disputes that are there with regard to the said property, survey could not be completed. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the documents filed including the title deeds to contend and argue that the relief claimed cannot be granted in view of the seriously disputed questions of fact. Sri V.R.N.Prashanth also relies upon a judgment of the Division Bench reported in The District Collector, R.R.District & another v. G.Dayakar & others1 to argue that in such cases, appropriate forum is the civil Court to establish their title and right in the property.
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue also adopts the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent and states that this is not a case of failure to conduct a survey, but is a case of difficulty in conducting the survey because of the seriously disputed claims over the property.
1 2003 (1) A.P.L.J.349(HC) 4 This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that the writ petitioner is represented by a G.P.A holder. A reading of the entire writ affidavit does not disclose how R.Rajendra Reddy is claiming title to the property. The power of attorney filed with regard to the writ petition and its English translation do not disclose the flow of title. Absolutely no foundation is laid in the writ affidavit about the title and claim of the writ petitioner in the said property. Certain documents are filed but they cannot be considered in the absence of proper or adequate pleading. Even otherwise, a reading of the counter affidavit shows that at the very outset itself it is submitted that the writ petitioner or his predecessor do not have an inch of land in the Sy.No.822/1B. It is also positively asserted that the entire land measuring Ac.3.17 cents in Sy.No.822/1B has already been transferred to third parties. The unofficial respondent also claims independent title to the property and his predecessor has acquired the property through sale deeds of April 1960 and December, 1965. The pendency of earlier suits between the unofficial respondent and Sri M.Sidhaiah Naidu are mentioned in the counter affidavit. That an Advocate Commissioner visited the 5 site pursuant to the directions of the Senior Civil Judge in OS.No.126 of 1989 and fixed the boundaries also mentioned in the said counter affidavit. It is stated that the writ petitioner (by suppressing these facts) approached the authorities, they have issued a notice for the proposed survey and thereupon he submitted a detailed reply bringing out the true facts.
This Court notices that unlike the counter affidavit filed, which describes the case of the unofficial respondent with some clarity, the petitioner's writ affidavit is absolutely vague and bereft of material particulars. A Mandamus can only be issued when a person establishes a right and a correspondent duty on the respondents. Both of these must co-exist. When the petitioner establishes his right and the official respondent do not act as warranted by law, a Mandamus can be issued. The petitioner's 'right' in the property is not clear.
In the case on hand, both the writ petitioner and the unofficial respondent rely upon notices which were issued earlier. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an 'inaction' or failure on the part of the official respondent. They give notices for conducting the survey, but the same was not 6 practicable. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent and in particular the Division Bench judgment referred to supra, which is also binding on this Court, in a case of this nature the only remedy or course left to the parties is to file regular civil suit to establish their right and title in the property and also seek an appropriate relief from the said Court for establishment of the said boundaries.
This Court is therefore of the opinion that the writ petition is filed for a seemingly innocuous relief which however has serious consequences and repercussions. The absence of proper pleadings, the absence of documentary evidence and the failure to traverse the contents of the reply affidavit are all factors which compel this Court to come to a conclusion that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever in this writ petition. The opinions expressed are for disposal of this writ petition. None of the rights of the parties to this writ are comprehensively decided for the present.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.
7
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.
________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J Date: 28.10.2022 KLP