Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Samireddynarasimha Murthy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 August, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.15723 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking the following relief:-
"to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents,
particularly, the 4th respondent herein to take action on petitioner's
representation for the relief in an extent of Ac.0.99 cents in
Sy.No.262/1 which is situated at Chinnagadili Mandal, Maduruvada
Village, Visakhapatnam District and consequently direct the
respondents to conduct the proper survey and to update the
petitioner's name in revenue records and pass such other order...."
2. It is the case of petitioner that the Land Acquisition Officer
acquired the land in an extent of Ac.3.46 cents out of Ac.3.96 cents
in Sy.No.262/1 along with surrounding survey number vide
L.P.No.19/89 subsequently modified the layout and revised layout
was prepared to the acquired land by VUDA remaining Ac.0.50
cents, which is in possession of the petitioner till date. Father of
petitioner by name Narasingarao Somireddy had purchased the said
land in the year 1985 from original pattadars, his name was entered
in revenue records and Pattadar passbook and title deed were
obtained from the 4th respondent. However, the petitioner sold the
above patta land and the relevant documents are placed on record
along with this Writ Petition to show the title of petitioner over the
subject land.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award bearing
No.20/1988 by fixing compensation of Rs.1,78,498/- for an extent
of Ac.36.88 cents situated in Maduravada Village, Chinnagadili
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District declared by the government
services under the LAD Scheme (The Land Acquisition Development
Scheme). As the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the
property and as there is a dispute, the petitioner made a
representation on 08.07.2021 to the Tahsildar for conducting survey
of the land in Sy.No.262/1 with reference to Field Measurement
Book and other documents, but no action was taken till date, which
is illegal and arbitrary.
4. During hearing, M/s Vinodin Ruth, learned counsel for the
petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition. Whereas,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that
without appropriate application i.e., F-line application through Mee
Seva, survey cannot be conducted and the inaction of respondents in
conduct of survey on the basis of representation, dated 08.07.2021
submitted by the petitioner cannot be declared as illegal and
arbitrary.
5. The petitioner made a representation on 08.07.2021 to the
Tahsildar with a request to conduct survey. For issuance of Writ of
Mandamus against an administrative authority the affected
individual must demand justice and only on refusal he has right to
approach the Court. In "Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited
v. Union of India1", the Supreme Court has adopted the following
statement of law in this regard:-
"As a general rule the orders would not be granted unless the party
complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that
he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply,
and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand
of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce,
and that the demand was met by a refusal."
AIR 1975 SC 460
6. Thus a party seeking mandamus must show that a demand is
made for justice from the authority concerned by performing his duty
and that the demand was refused. In "Saraswati Industrial
Syndicate Limited v. Union of India" (referred supra) the Court
refused to grant mandamus as there was no such demand and
refusal. Where a civil servant approached the court for mandamus
against wrongful denial of promotion, he was denied the relief
because of his failure to make representation to the government
against injustice. The said principle was reiterated in "Amrit Lal v.
Collector, C.E.C., Revenue2".
7. In "the Statesman v. Fact Finding Committee3" the Court
opined that the demand for justice is not a matter of form but a
matter of substance, and it is necessary that a "proper and sufficient
demand has to be made". The demand must be made to the proper
authority and not to an authority which is not in a position to
perform its duty in the manner demanded. It is suggested that the
Court should not fossilize this rule into something rigid and
inflexible but keep it as flexible. Thus, the law is well settled that
there must be a demand from the citizen and denial by the State
authorities.
8. In the present case, the petitioner made a representation on
08.07.2021 for conducting survey of land in Sy.No.262/1 situated at
Maduravada Village, Chinnagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
The demand is not proper, since F-line application is to be made
through Mee Seva on payment of requisite fee for conducting survey
of the land. Therefore, when a demand was not made properly, the
AIR 1975 SC 538
AIR 1975 Cal.14
question of refusal or denial of such demand by the authorities, does
not arise, thereby Writ of Mandamus cannot be granted in favour of
the person, who did not make appropriate application and thereby
this Court is not inclined to issue a Writ of Mandamus by applying
the principle laid down in the above judgments. Consequently, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
__________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 04.08.2021
IS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.15723 OF 2021
Date: 04.08.2021
IS
