Itc Limited vs The State Of Ap
2024 Latest Caselaw 647 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 647 AP
Judgement Date : 23 January, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Itc Limited vs The State Of Ap on 23 January, 2024

                                                                          14

           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

      MAIN CASE No. W.A. No.1308 of 2023

                              PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.      DATE                                                             OFFICE
                                         ORDER

No                                                                         NOTE

02.    23.01.2024         The present Letters Patent Appeal has

been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.18985 of 2023.

The learned Single Judge, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, had disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application online for purposes of seeking re-survey of the subject matter land.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the petition was disposed of and the order impugned was passed without hearing the appellant even when the appellant was a party respondent No.4 in the writ petition. It is stated that the order impugned is unsustainable inasmuch as the petitioner had earlier got the land surveyed through the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Guntur and in case he was not satisfied with the survey so conducted, he can as well avail the remedy of appeal as envisaged in terms of Section 11 of

the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

None for the private respondent No.4. Notice be issued to the learned counsel for private respondent No.4 - Sri B. V. Nikhil Sandilya for appearance in the matter on the next date of adjournment.

List on 20.02.2024.

In the meantime, operation of the judgment and order impugned shall remain stayed. The pendency of the present appeal, however, will not prevent private respondent No.4 from availing the appeal remedy, if so advised.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

AMD