Telangana High Court
WP/38669/2013 of Rajulapati Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Chinna Giri Rajulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.38669 OF 2013 Dated 30th December 2013 BETWEEN: 1. Rajulapati Satyanarayana and one other. …PETITIONERS AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and two others.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38669 OF 2013
Dated 30th December 2013
BETWEEN:
1. Rajulapati Satyanarayana and one other.
…PETITIONERS
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector, KrishnaDistrict at Machilipatnam and two others.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleaderfor Revenue The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.38669 OF 2013
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with a grievance that respondentNo.3 has not been holding survey in pursuance of the applicationdated 18.03.2012 filed by the petitioners.
At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue (Andhra Area), on instructions, submitted that on19.04.2012 itself, respondent No.3 has informed the petitionersthrough an endorsement in writing that survey cannot be held as theland in respect of which they applied for survey is classified as‘gramakantakam poramboke’.
Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for thepetitioners, submitted that his clients have not received theabovementioned purported communication of respondent No.3.
In as much as the petitioners’ application has already beenrejected, no mandamus, as claimed in this Writ Petition, can begranted. If the petitioners have not received the writtenendorsement of respondent No.3, they are permitted to approachrespondent No.3. If and when such approach is made by thepetitioners, respondent No.3 shall furnish a copy of theendorsement in writing to enable the petitioners to avail furtherremedies under Circular Rc.No.N1/6543/99 dated 25.07.2001 of theSpecial Commissioner and Director, Survey, Settlements and LandRecords.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition standsdisposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,WP.MP.No.48061 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim reliefshall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J30[th] December 2013RRB