Udayagiri Venkataramana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8060 AP

       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.

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

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)

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

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

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.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

stand dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date: 28.10.2022 KLP