IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.23867 of 2011
SRI
BOLLENENI VENKATESWARLU, KHAMMAM DISTRICT
VS
TAHSILDAR,
& ANOTHER
ORDER:
The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10.06.2011 to mutate his name in the revenue records, and issue pattedar pass books as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’).
Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner claims to be owner, and to be in possession, of land admeasuring Ac.7.20 in Sy.No.190/188 in Nellipaka Village, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District. He claims to have obtained the land by succession from his grandfather who was the original pattedar of Ac.10.00 of land. It is his case that he was cultivating the land, and his name was reflected in the revenue records. In the year 1983, the petitioner and others are said to have lodged complaints that Reserve Forest Officials had interfered with their lands spread over an extent of Ac.134.10 guntas in Sy.No.190 in Nellipaka Village; a report dated 23.08.1982 was submitted by the Tahsildar, Mangoor; and, on its basis, the Collector, Khammam, had called upon the Tahsildar, Mangoor, on 22.12.1984, to send a copy of the podi sketch of Sy.No.190 to the Forest Settlement Officer, Khammam for settlement of the claim of the petitioner and others.
Sri P.Badri Premnath, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that all that the petitioner is seeking is for a survey to be conducted, and for his land to be demarcated. He would refer, in this context, to a letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Aswapuram Mandal to the Mandal Surveyor, Aswapuram Mandal on 26.12.2009 asking them to prepare the podi as well as tippon work with the boundaries of the said area.
It is evident, from the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, that there is a boundary dispute between the petitioner and other similarly situated persons on the one hand, and the government in the forest department on the other. What the petitioner in effect seeks, by way of an innocuous relief to have his representation disposed of, is for demarcation of the land, and thereby have the boundary dispute between himself, and the Government of Andhra Pradesh, resolved.
No reference is made by the petitioner in his writ affidavit to any notification having been issued by the government under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1920 in the absence of which the respondents are under no statutory obligation to conduct a survey. Further, under the guise of having a survey conducted, the petitioner cannot seek declaration of title, or for an injunction restraining the Forest Department or the Government of Andhra Pradesh from interfering with his possession, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Any disputes, regarding title and possession, can be effectively adjudicated in appropriate civil proceedings and this Court, ordinarily, would not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this regard. Disputed questions relating to title or possession cannot be satisfactorily gone into or adjudicated in a writ petition. (Rani Sundarammani v. Govt. of A.P.[1]; Lambadi Pedda Bhadru v. Mhod. Ali Hussain[2]; Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, (ix) New Delhi v. S.M. Hussain Rasheed[3]). The High Court would not allow the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to be used for deciding disputes for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suitor application available to a litigant. (New Satgram Engineering Works v. Union of India[4], Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria[5] and Lambadi Pedda Bhadru v. Mohd. Ali Hussain[6]). The relief of having a survey conducted, and the land demarcated, can as well be sought for in a properly constituted suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of a civil suit, I see no reason to grant the relief sought for in this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
Date:25.08.2011
Note:Furnish copy within one week
bo
usd
No comments:
Post a Comment