B Etta Reddy 5 Others, vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept., Hyd., 6 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1624 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                      WRIT APPEAL No.255 OF 2017

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

06.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3948

of 2017.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ

petition was preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners being

aggrieved by the action of the revenue authorities in conducting

survey. It was stated by the appellants/writ petitioners that no

notice has been issued to them and the survey is going to effect

their plot Nos.4A and 4C, admeasuring 374.5 suqare yards, in

Survey No.21 of Chintalkunta Village, Hamlet of Meerpet,

Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It was also stated that

an attempt is being made to handover the vacant possession of

the said plots to respondent Nos.6 and 7 therein. The learned

Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition and paragraph 4

of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as

under:-

"4. Inasmuch as the petitioners are stated to be in possession of the plot in the question, there shall be interim direction not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners'

plot in question. However, this order will not preclude the Revenue-authorities to take steps to conduct survey of the government land adjacent to the plot of the petitioners, by following the due process of law i.e. issuance of notice to the petitioners and affording opportunity of hearing to them."

The learned Single Judge has categorically held that the

respondents will not interfere with the possession of the

appellants/writ petitioners' plots, however the revenue

authorities shall be free to conduct survey of the Government

land adjacent to the writ petitioners' pots by following due

process of law that too after issuing notice to the writ

petitioners. This Court does not find any reason to interfere

with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as the

interest of the appellants/writ petitioners has already been

protected by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal accordingly stands disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

30.03.2022 JSU