Telangana High Court
WP/20237/2006 of Manka Antaiah S/o M. Ramaiah Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at on 26 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.20237 of 2006 26.12.2006 Between: Manka Antaiah, S/o.M.Ramaiah … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.20237 of
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20237 of 2006
26.12.2006
Between:
Manka Antaiah, S/o.M.Ramaiah
… Petitioner
AND
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOWRIT PETITION No.20237 of 2006
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:
The petitioner is owner of land admeasuring Acs.0.34 guntas insurvey No.351/oo and Acs.0.10 guntas in survey No.352/oo situated atSriram Nagar village of Moinabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. He claims the property to be ancestral property in respect of whichpetitioner was also obtained Pattadar Pass Book (PPB) and titledeeds. He made an application to the second respondent requestingfor survey of the land in survey Nos.351/oo and 352/oo, in vain. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamusdirecting the second respondent to conduct survey.
After getting instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleaderfor Revenue (General-T) submits that as per the revenue records totalextent of land admeasuring Acs.15.21 guntas in survey No.351 isowned by as many as twenty pattadars and total extent of Acs.15.23guntas in survey No.352 is owned by as many as twenty onepattadars. He also submits that there are no sub-division numbers inthese two fields and, therefore, survey and demarcation cannot betaken up, as there is no procedure in Survey and Settlement Rules todemarcate sub-divisions. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does notdispute the legal position projected by the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader. He, however, requests that the MandalRevenue Officer (MRO), Moinabad Mandal, may be directed toconduct the survey of entire land in survey Nos.351 and 352 oncondition of petitioner depositing the charges for survey anddemarcation.
Section 9 of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (the Act, forbrevity) empowers the Survey Officer to determine and recordundisputed boundary after giving notice to all the parties concerned. Similarly, Section 10 of the Act empowers Survey Officer to determineand record disputed boundary after giving notice to all the partiesconcerned. In either case, notice to all those persons disputing theboundary is necessary. Now that it is not permissible to survey anddemarcate the piece of land owned by the petitioner in survey Nos.351and 352, the second respondent may take necessary action to conductsurvey of the entire extents of the land in survey Nos.351 and 352. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the second respondent witha copy of this order renewing the request for survey. As and whensuch request is made, the second respondent may take necessaryaction and complete the same within a period of six weeks thereafter,after giving notice to all other pattadars in survey Nos.351 and 352.
The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordinglydisposed of. No costs.
_____________
December 26, 2006. (V.V.S.RAO,J)YS