Sriramula Venkata Hari Prasad v. The State Of Telangana
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WRIT PETITION NO: 19664 OF 2020 Between:
Sriramula Venkata Hali Prasad, S/o. Appaiah Shastri, Age 63 Years, Occ: Retired Explyee, R/o. Huzurnagar Town and Mandal, Suryapet District, TS. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, TS.
Tahshildar, Huzurnagar lt/andal, Suryapet District, TS. ltilandal Surveyor, Huzurnagr Mandal, Suryapet District, TS. .,,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of IVandamus declare the action of the 2nd Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law for not consider the F-Line Application of the Petition er on 0910912020 and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the F-Line Application of the Petitioner filed on 0910912020 to survey, demarcate and fixing the boundary stones to an eitent of Ac 5.29 Gts in the Sy No. 533/4 situated at Huzurnagar Revenue Village and Mandal, Suryapet District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the F-Line Application filed by the Petitioner on 09tost2020.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court at the admission stage made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WRIT PETITION o.19664 of 202O ORDER:
Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in conducting survey of the subject land belonging to the petitioner and demarcating the land in spite of submitting application by the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.
2. With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the matter is squarely covered by the common order, dated 28.04.20t6, passed by this Court in W.P.No.4B11 of 2011 and batch. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed in terms of the above referred common order.
4.
The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents has fairly conceded that the common order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.4B11 of 2011 and batch, dated 28,04.2016, covers the /rs in q uestion.
5. A reading of the common order, dated 28.04.2016, passed in W.P.No.4B1l of 2011 and batch, reveals that this Court while dealing with the issue in question and taking into consideration the Circulars issued by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, has held as under:
"23. ln view af the abave facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent-authorities to consider the applications of the petitioners for survey and demarcation of lands after receiving necessary charges, keeping in view the Circulars vide Rc. No. N1/ 1408/07, dated 13-07-2007, Rc. No. N1/6543/99, dated 25.07.2001 and Circular vide Rc.No.N2/1741/2010, dated 18-05-2010 and also in terms of the judgment of W.A.No.61B of 2013 and alsa keeping in view of the provisions of Sections 89, 89-A and 92 of the Act and take necessary action and communicate the decision to the parties. It is open for the petitioners to prefer appeal against the said order, if they are aggrieved in terms of circulars referred to abave."
6. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the common order, dated 28.04.2076, passed in W.P.No.4811 of 2011 and batch. The above said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
I I SDi.T.KRISHNA KU ASSISTANT REG //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, TS.
2. The Tahshildar, Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District, TS.
3. The Mandal Surveyor, Huzurnagr Mandal, Suryapet District, TS.
4. One CC to Sri. lvlullangi Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, Hlgh Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] (along with a copy of Order dated: 2810412016 in WP. No. 4811 of 2011 and batch)
6. Two CD Copies Prk
HIGH COURT DATED:1811112O20
ORDER
WP.No.19664 of 2020 tA Y r(( 3" 0 s 0Ec2U0 * * PATC ,r9 Allowing the WP.
at the admission stage without costs.
5y.
3 LoP'eA -yr1\-\".-
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.4811 of 2O11. 3L799, 38450 of 2014. 695. 704. 705. 706. 851. 1286. 1317. 1363. 1385, 1387. 1696. 20A2.2t69, 2252. 2441. 29At. 5588. 8182. a209. A572.8784. 8902,92a7.9s72.
9750.9a20. 9831. 1oo43. 11401. LL42a. L2549.
13332, 13439. 16158. 16306, L7sL4, La767.19189. L9722 of 2015 and W.P.No. 24695 of 2OO9 COMMON ORDER:
Since issue involved in these matters is one and the same, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
In all these writ petitions, it is the case of the petitioners that they have made representations to the respondent-authorities for conducting survey and demarcation of their lands and that they have paid necessary charges and inspite of the same, the survey is not being conducted. In some of the cases, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-authorities are not receiving necessary charges towards conducting of survey and demarcation of their lands. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petitions are filed seeking directions to receive representations and necessary charges for conducting survey and demarcation of the lands of the petitioners.
) Common counter affidavit is filed admitting that the Government has issued Circulars in respect of survey of lands subject to conditions that the persons seeking survey are required to produce certain documents in terms of Circulars and only on compliance of said conditions, the survey would be conducted. Since the petitioners have not complied with the conditions stipulated in the Circulars, they are not entitled for any directions. As such, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying on the judgment, dated 14-06-201,3, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.618 of 2013 submits that basing on the Circulars issued by the Government, the Writ Appeal was disposed of directing the respondentauthorities to conduct survey and issue necessary survey report/proceedings to the appellant/petitioner therein. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue by placing reliance on the Circulars vide Rc.No.N1ll4O8 l07, dated l3-O7-2007, Rc.No.N1/6543199, dated 25-07-2001 and Circular vide Rc.No.N2/ 1741 12010, dated 18-05-2010 issued by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, submits that unless the petitioners
J comply the conditions laid down in the said Circulars, they cannot, as a matter of right, seek directions for conducting the survey and demarcation of their lands. The Circulars are issued only to facilitate the survey of private lands. He also submits that in W.A.No.618 of 2013, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a direction was issued for compliance of conditions and after production of relevant documents for survey as sought by the respondents in Memo dated 16-04-2012 and reminder Memo dated 10-06-2013, the respondents are directed to conduct survey and issue necessary report/proceedings to the appellant therein. Learned Government Pleader basing on the counter submits that in respect of the plots situated in approved layouts of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, the survey cannot be conducted by the Survey department and it is for the licensed surveyors licensed by the Corporations to conduct the survey.
A perusal of the Circulars relied on by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue goes to show that subject to compliance of conditions in the Circulars, survey can be undertaken. The Division Bench in the said Judgment also considered the effect of Circulars and set aside the order of learned Single Judge. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also not disputed that the petitioners have to comply the conditions in the Circulars relied on by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. In fact, Division Bench issued directions basing on the Circulars. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue also states that while taking up the survey and demarcation of the 1ands, the Survey Department has to fo1low the provisions under Sections 89, B9-A and 92 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangala Area) Land Revenue Act, 13i7 Fasli (For short " the Act").
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondentauthorities to consider the applications of the petitioners for survey and demarcation of lands after receiving necessary charges, keeping 1n view the Circulars vide Rc.No.N 1/ 1408/07, dated l3-O7 -2OO7 , Rc.No.N1/6543199, dated 25-07-2001 and Circular vide Rc.No.N2/ 1.74112O1O, dated 18-05-2010 and also in terms of the judgment in W.A.No.618 of 2013 and also keeping in view the provisions of Sections 89, 89-A and 92 of the Act and take necessary action and communicate the decision to the parties. It is open for the petitioners to prefer appeal against the said order, if they are aggrieved in terms of circulars referred to above.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions sha-ll stand closed.
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J 28-O4-2016 nvl