Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bommisetty Srinivasulu, vs The State Of Ap on 3 March, 2021
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.3923 of 2021
ORDER: (Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App(virtual) mode, since
this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 Pandemic).
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents and with
their consent, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission.
The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the
respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioner without
considering the application for survey and demarcation to fix the
boundaries in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.44 cents in S.No.335
situated at Kadirayacheruvu Village, Kalakada Mandal, Chittor District, as
unjust, arbitrary and contrary to A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for
short 'the Act') and for a consequential direction not to dispossess the
petitioner without conducting the survey in respect of the subject matter
property.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits inter alia that the
petitioner's father was absolute owner and uninterrupted peaceful
possession of the subject matter property and thereafter the petitioner
came into possession of the same after the demise of his father. He
submits that the petitioner made an application through Mee-Seva on
22.06.2016 seeking conduct of survey for demarcation and fixing of the
boundaries in respect of the subject matter property. He further submits
that instead of taking action on the said application, the respondents are
trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject matter property for the
purpose of allotting the same under 'Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu'
scheme. He submits that the said action of the respondents without
disposing of the petitioners' application for survey which was made long
2
back is arbitrary, unjust and violates the rights of the petitioner guaranteed
under the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel further relies on the judgment of the erstwhile
common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the case of Muramulla
Padmavathi v. State of A.P.1 and seeks appropriate directions stating
that if the petitioner is dispossessed from the subject matter property,
without following the due procedure and without taking necessary action
on the application referred to above, he would suffer serious prejudice and
irreparable loss.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court in view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner made
an application through Mee-Seva on 22.06.2016 which the authority
concerned i.e., the 4th respondent is required to take necessary action in
terms of the provisions of the said Act, deems it appropriate, without going
into merits of the case to dispose of the same, with a direction to the 4th
respondent to take necessary action. It may be pertinent to state here that
the issue with regard to consideration of application for survey and
demarcation of land has been succinctly considered by a learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.2674 of 2020 dated 19.02.2020.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th
respondent to take necessary action on the petitioner's application dated
22.06.2016 and pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section
10(1) and Section 10(2) of the said Act, within a period of four(4) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the interim
orders dated 18.02.2021 directing the status quo with regard to the
property in question shall be maintained by both the parties.
1
2016(3) ALD 650
3
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications in the writ
petition, shall stand closed.
_______________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
Date: 03.03.2021.
BLV
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.3923 of 2021
Date: 03.03.2021
BLV
