ANDHRA PRADESH - 532 185 v. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is clarified that dismissal of this Writ Petition will not constitute res judicata. No Order as to Costs.
Judgment
Cause title
104, GOLLA VEEDHI, SINGUPURAM B.S. PURAM, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 532 185. ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARY BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MOHAMMAD NAYAB RASOOL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2
1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri Mohammad Abdul Majeed, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Md. Nayab Rasool, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Stamps & Registration.
The present Writ Petition is filed by the Writ Petitioner against the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 for their inaction in conducting survey based on the F-line Applications submitted by the Writ Petitioner dated 20.12.2024
21.09.2024 (Exs.P.1 & P.2) respectively.
Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Stamps & Registration has submitted the Written Instruction furnished by the Deputy Tahsildar, Singupuram Village, Srikakulam Mandal, dated 08.10.2024 and Endorsement dated 08.01.2025. Copy of it is also supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. The same is taken on record.
The Endorsement dated 08.01.2025 would indicate that a Civil Suit, bearing O.S.No.530 of 2024 is pending between the parties. The factum of pendency of the Civil Suit has neither been disclosed in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition nor it was made known to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner had sought time to obtain instructions from his Client on last occasion i.e., on 24.01.2025.
Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would now submit on instructions that the said Suit bearing O.S.No.530 of 2024 is filed for partition. However, the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has no instruction whether the subject land of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.129/3 of Singupuram Village, Srikakulam Mandal, is part of the Suit Schedule Property or not. Writ Petitioner has not filed a copy of the Plaint. 3
In this view of the matter, this Court is unable to understand whether the subject land forms a part of the Suit Schedule Property or not. However, going by the Endorsement dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Tahsildar, it appears that the subject land is part of the Suit Schedule Property in O.S.No.530 of 2024. The Writ Petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court for seeking any such directions for conduct of survey, when the Suit (O.S.No.530 of 2024) is pending for partition, by making an appropriate Application.
Operative part
In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is clarified that dismissal of this Writ Petition will not constitute res judicata. No Order as to Costs.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 17.02.2025 JKS 4 53 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 1207 OF 2025
17.02.2025 JKS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 17 Feb 2025. The bench was GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.