L. Prakash Rao vs The Tahsildar,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2675 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                       and
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                            W.A.No.577 of 2009

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

        Heard Mr. B.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant.


2.      None for the respondents.


3.      This intra court appeal has been filed against an order

dated     23.01.2009,        by     which       the     writ   petition   viz.,

W.P.No.26375 of 2008, preferred by respondents No.3

and 4/writ petitioners has been disposed of without notice to

the appellant, who was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the writ

petition.


4.      Facts

giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are

that respondents No.3 and 4 filed the aforesaid writ petition in

which inaction on the part of Tahsildar, Serilingampalli

Mandal was assailed, for not conducting survey and fixing the ::2::

boundaries in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas

bearing Survey No.176 situated at Kondapur Village,

Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant

was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the writ petition. However,

the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 23.01.2009,

disposed of the writ petition without notice to the appellant.

The learned Single Judge directed that in case respondents

No.3 and 4/writ petitioners make a fresh application, the

Tahsildar, Serilingampalli Mandal shall cause survey of the

subject land and fix boundaries thereto.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

respondents No.3 and 4 had filed a suit for perpetual

injunction viz., O.S.No.887 of 2008 in respect of the land in

question and therefore, they have no right to seek survey of

the said land.

6. It is pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this

Court, while entertaining the writ petition, had granted an

interim order on 07.04.2009, staying the order ::3::

passed by the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid order is still

operative.

7. The appellant has not been heard before the writ

petition is disposed of. Therefore, the impugned order

dated 23.01.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.26375 of 2008, is set aside.

8. Learned Single Judge is requested to decide the matter

afresh by affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant

and respondents No.3 and 4/writ petitioners.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

stand closed.

__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 23.09.2023 LUR