Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sagiraju Vijaya Naga Raju vs The State Of Ap on 19 October, 2024
1
APHC010458042024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 23623/2024
Between:
1. SAGIRAJU VIJAYA NAGA RAJU, S/O. ANJANEYA RAJU AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS, R/O. RAIANAGARAM VILLAGE H/O
KORRAGUNTAPALEM VILLAGE, MUDINEPALLI MANDAL, ELURU
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT
4. THE THASILDAR, MUDINEPALLI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT.
5. REDDI SATISH BABU, S/O. PEDA APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53
YEARS, R/O. ALLURU VILLAGE, MUDINEPALLI MANDAL, ELURU
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2
The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri Y. Satyartha, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.V.
Aditya Chowdary, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun
Chowdhary, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing
for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has cited a Judgment of the
Learned Single Judge of this Court in Kotagiri Venkata Satya Ramachandra
Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (in W.P.No.6665 of 2020 dated
17.03.2020) where the analysis of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 has been
made. Learned Single Judge of this Court had categorically held that the
Revenue Authority does not have the power to declare the easementary right
or extend such easementary rights in favour of anyone. Para Nos.4 & 5 of the
said Order are usefully extracted hereunder:
"4. A perusal of the Indian Easement Act, 1882
does not show any provision which empowers the
Revenue Authority to either declare easementary rights
or extend such easementary rights. The provisions of
the said Act only provide as to how easements are
created over the usage for long periods of time,
extension, suspension or refusal of
easements,dispensation of easements etc. It is not
clear as to which provision of law empowers the
4threspondent to extend easementary rights to the
persons, who do not have such rights in the first place.
The observation of the 4threspondent that the said
easementary rights were available to the farmers in the
area and therefore such easementary rights can be
extended to the proposed allottees in R.S.No.90/2 of
Kummarikuntla Village, is not a power which is
stipulated by any provision of the Indian Easements
Act, 1882. This is a clear case of over reach and the
order is wholly without jurisdiction.
5. In these circumstances, the order dated
18.02.2020 in Rc.No.B. 285/Easement/2019 issued by
the 4threspondent is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the
writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs."
3. In this view of the matter, the impugned Order dated 30.09.2024
(Ex.P.1) shall stand suspended until further Orders.
4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner is directed to take out Personal
Notice in respect of the Unofficial Respondent No.5 within one week from
today and file proof of receipt of Notice within a week thereafter.
5. Let Counter Affidavit be filed in the meantime.
6. List the matter on 11.11.2024.
__________________________________________
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 19.10.2024
Vns
