Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : UPENDRA LAL WAGHRAY
Joint Collector, Rangareddy Dist. - Appellant
Versus
K.Sathaiah - Respondent
W.A. No. 157/85
Decided On : 03-05-91
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. P. Pratap Reddy
Held : In view of the provisions of Sec 7 of the Extension Act it shall not apply in respect of things done and omitted to be done before the commencement of the Extension Act In this case the survey of the two adjoining villages was done a prior to the Extension of the Andhra Pradesh Act, under the relevant provisions of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act and it gave rise to the controversy about the boundaries of the two villages Apart from this, the petitioners themselves had approached the Joint Collector for rectifying the boundaries between the two villages Therefore, the Joint Collector had jurisdiction to decide the issue
WA Allowed
( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the three respondents in the writ petition viz, the joint Collector, the Revenue Divisional officer and the Tahsildar of Rajendranagar taluk, Rangareddy district against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dt: 21-9-84 allowing the writ petition no. 6111/83 filed by the respondents herein. The parties will be referred to as their ranks in the writ petition.
( 2 ) THE writ petition was filed by seven persons seeking quashing of the order of the Joint Collector dt. 27-6-83 and consequent direction to the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners possession over agricultural land bearing sy, Nos. I to 22 measuring Act. 136-20 guntas in Manneguda village, hamlet of shamshabad village, Rajendranagar Taluq rangareddy district. By the order impugned in the writ petition the Joint Collector exercising powers under section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) land Revenue Act, has ordered that the overlapping extent of land shown in manneguda village as per the particulars given in the order should be deleted as they form an integral part of survey number 12 fporamboke) of Gollapally village and the common boundary between the villages is accordingly rectified. He further directed that the Assistant Director survey and Land Records, Rangareddy district to take all necessary action. The learned single Judge has quashed the said order on the ground that after extension of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 to the entire state by the State Amendment Act 22 of 1985, the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to take action under the andhra Pradesh (Telangana Are;i) Land revenue Act in respect of the controversy regarding the boundaries.
( 3 ) IT is necessary to state a few facts for the purpose of deciding the controversy. Gollapalli kalan (Kalan in Urdu moans large ) is a village a few miles from the city. Towards its south is another village known as Golapalli khurd (khurd in Urdu means small ). Towards the north of Gollapalli Large (hereinafter referred to as"gollapallil) is mannsguda village which earlier belonged to Sanrnstham. It appears now Manneguda has been nude a hamlet of another village Shimshabad. The writ petitioners claim that they have been in possession of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 1 to 22 of meaneguda village (which is said to be in the land) since the last several decades and the action of the authorities in treating some of this land as Government iand of the adjacent Gollapalli (L) was illegal. They had earlier filed W P No. 7210/82 challenging the assignment of some land made in favour of respondent n0. 1 therein in village Gollapalli (L) claiming that it was a part of Manneguda village and it was in their occupation. The writ petition was disposed of 09 4-7-84 directing the petitioners to approach Civil Court for establishing their rights. The petitioners do not claim any source of title part from their possession and even before the filing of the earlier writ petition had filed a suit viz, O S No. 69/79 on the file of the district Munsif, Hyderabad, West and South against the District Collector, Revenue divisional Officer and the Tahsilder for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over Ac. 136-36 guntas in survey Number 1 to 22 of Manneguda village. By the Judgment dt: 20-7-87 the said suit was decreed graming an injunction. However, It appears the petitioners later filed a suit for injunction against some of the assignees in village gollapaili (L) which was not pursued and ultimately dismissed. In about 1982, appellections were submitted to the Joint collector by some of the petitioners and also occupants of land in Gollapalli (L) seeking a resolution of the controversy about the Location of I he boundary between the village Gollapalli (L) and manneguda. The Joint Collector, on the basis of the report submitted after an inspection of the site by the Assistant
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.