Kandukuri Satyanarayana v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,Represented By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Between:

Kandukuri Satyanarayana .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 19.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 30.08.2010 made by the petitioner seeking survey and subdivision of his land admeasuring Acs.2.30 cents out of Acs.10.74 cents in Survey No.30 situated at Maddimuttanagudem Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary.

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of the land referred to above. Out of Acs.2.30 cents, the petitioner is said to have purchased Ac.1.80 cents from one Kandukuri Ramamma under a registered sale deed dated 29.05.1989 and got the remaining land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents by inheritance. It is stated that the petitioner is paying land revenue to the Government, his name was incorporated in the revenue records and the Revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour. It is also stated that when the boundary stones were disturbed, the petitioner made an

application to the 4th respondent on 13.07.2009 seeking survey of his land by paying the necessary fee. As there was no response, the petitioner made a representation dated 31.08.2009 to the 2nd respondent who in turn ordered the 3rd respondent to take action and submit a report. As no action was initiated by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is said to have filed W.P.No.23277 of 2009 and on personal appearance ordered by this Court, the respondents 3 and 4 got measured only Ac.1.80 cents instead of Acs.2.30 cents and fixed the boundaries. The said writ petition was disposed of on 21.06.2010 on the ground that the survey was done. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have made a representation dated 30.08.2010 to the 4th respondent and another application dated 27.09.

2010 to the 2nd respondent seeking survey and sub-division of his entire land out of Acs.10.74 cents in Survey No.30. The 2nd respondent is said to have forwarded the representation dated 27.09.2010 to the 3rd respondent by directing him to take action. As there was no response from the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 30.08.2010, for which the learned Government Pleader for Revenue did not object. Having regard to the circumstances stated above and without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is

disposed of, by directing the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.08.2010, in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if the same is still pending consideration. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 19th August, 2015 cbs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

19th August, 2015 cbs