Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, S.R.NAYAK
District Collector, R.R.Dist. - Appellant
Versus
G.Dayakar - Respondent
Decided On : 11-28-02
Criminal Law - Criminal Trial – Writ Appeal - Seeking a Writ of Mandamus - Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 - Sec. 9 or 10. Section 14 - Section 11 – Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Owner of land situated in Sy - In or about year 1992 government allotted about of its land in Sy. and inducted later into possession of said land - Adjoining land in Sy. No. 67 appears to be a private land - Petitioners in W. P. claimed that part of land in sy. with an extent of about guntas of land was divided into 16 plots and sold to different individuals from time to time under separate registered sale deeds - Further claimed that they are owners of plot Nos. 1,2,14 and 16 of said layout - According to them mandal Revenue Officer, with help of police demolished compound walls and houses of petitioners in spite of objection by petitioners - Challenging so called high handed action of respondents, previously they filed W. P. seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents in allegedly interfering with possession and ownership of petitioners land in plot arbitrary, illegal and void and for a consequent order of restraint against respondents - Said writ petition was opposed by present appellants - Said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this court by order - Direction by learned Single Judge in said writ petition is as follows - Under these circumstances, writ petition is disposed of with a direction that Regional Deputy Director, survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, shall conduct resurvey of land in Survey No. 67 with reference to land possessed by petitioners and also land held by Shilparamam after giving notice to petitioners, 4th respondent - Record findings thereon - Exercise shall be done within a period of two months from date of receipt of a copy of this order - A copy of order shall be forwarded to regional Deputy Director – Held, Court says that unable to accept this contention - Clarification as sought for by petitioners is beyond scope of writ petition - In writ petition it was only directed that land should be surveyed by Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records - It is for petitioners to take appropriate action if respondents are holding land which belongs to petitioners, but this court cannot direct to put petitioners in land which was bound to be in possession of respondents - Under these circumstances, no orders are necessary on this petition - However, it is left open to petitioners to take appropriate action in pursuance of report of survey authorities - Therefore, even according to learned single Judge report of Regional deputy Director cannot be treated as an order passed in writ petition and only recourse left to parties concerned is to take appropriate action in pursuance of said report - Present impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is quite contra to his earlier opinion expressed in W. P regarding nature and scope of order passed by him in W. P - Court view of decision of Division Bench of this court, referred to above, we hold that only remedy or course left for parties in present writ petitions is only by filing a regular civil suit to establish their title and right in disputed property and seek appropriate reliefs - Relief asked for in present writ petitions by writ petitioners cannot be granted by this court while exercising its powers under Art. 226 of Constitution of India – Court are unable to uphold common order passed by learned Single Judge in two writ petitions - Appeal dismissed.
( 1 ) THE three Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents in W. P. Nos. 7364 and 10308 of 2000 against the common order dt. 17-8-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court allowing those two writ petitions. W. P. No. 20530 of 2002 is filed by five petitioners therein requesting this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct survey by the Regional Deputy Director of Survey and land Records, Hyderabad, of the land in S. No. 67 of Madhapur village, serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy district with reference to the land possessed by the petitioners and also the land held by the 3rd respondent. As common questions of law and facts arise in the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition, we are disposing of the writ appeals as well as the writ petition by a common order.
( 2 ) THE Government is the owner of the land situated in Sy. No. 64 of Madhapur village of Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga reddy District. In or about the year 1992 the government allotted about Ac. 45-00 of its land in Sy. No. 64 of Madhapur village to shilparamam and inducted the later into possession of the said land. The adjoining land in Sy. No. 67 appears to be a private land. The petitioners in W. P. No. 7364 of 2000 claimed that part of the land in sy. No. 67 with an extent of about Ac. 1-36 guntas of land was divided into 16 plots and sold to different individuals from time to time under separate registered sale deeds. They further claimed that they are the owners of plot Nos. 1,2,14 and 16 of the said layout. According to them on 5-10-1997 mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally mandal, with the help of the police demolished the compound walls and houses of the petitioners in spite of objection by the petitioners. Challenging the so called high handed action of the respondents, previously they filed W. P. No. 26012 of 1997 on 6-10-1997 seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in allegedly interfering with the possession and ownership of petitioners land in plot nos. 1, 2, 12 to 15 in Sy. No. 67 (part), madhapur village as arbitrary, illegal and void and for a consequent order of restraint against the respondents. The said writ petition was opposed by the present appellants. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 10-06-1999. The direction by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition is as follows:"under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Regional Deputy Director, survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, shall conduct the resurvey of the land in Survey No. 67 with reference to the land possessed by the petitioners and also the land held by Shilparamam after giving notice to the petitioners, 4th respondent - Shilparamam and record the findings thereon. This exercise shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of the order shall be forwarded to the regional Deputy Director, S and L. R. , hyderabad".
( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT to the said direction, Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land records, according to the writ petitioners, conducted survey operations and made demarcations and the plans and found that plot Nos. 1, 2,12,14,15 and part of 16 are located in Sy. No. 67 and also found the existing fence lying in Sy. No. 67 and not in sy. No. 64. Alleging that the respondents did not implement the report of Regional deputy Director, the petitioners in W. P. No. 26012 of 1997 filed W. P. No. 7364 of 2000 seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act and implement the findings recorded by the regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land records, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the directions of this Court in W. P. No. 26012 of 1997 dated 10-06-1999 in respect of plot nos. 1, 2, 14 and 16 of Sy. No. 67 of madhapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, ranga Reddy District. The two petitioners in w. P. NO. 103
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
