Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44835 (AP)

M SITHA MAHALAKSHMI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/20312/2025 · 2025-08-04

Harinath N

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Main Case No: W.P.No.20312 of 2025 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 01.09.2025 HN,J I.A.No.3 of 2025 The petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 05.08.2025. The petitioner is a third party to the writ petition; however, the present petition is filed on the grounds that the direction passed by this Court to the respondent authorities to depute a Town Surveyor to conduct a survey in pursuance of the application submitted by the petitioner has not been complied with. The writ petitioner had filed the writ petition aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not conducting a survey. The learned counsel for the third party in the review petition submits that the respondent authorities have issued proceedings dated 25.08.2025, whereby the respondent authorities have called upon the petitioner to appear on 30.08.2025 for the conduct of the survey. It is submitted that the writ petitioner and the 3rd party are contesting a civil dispute, and the survey report may have a bearing on the outcome of the suit. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the review petitioner has submitted an objection in conduct of survey stating that the review petition is pending before this Court. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the review petition does not merit any consideration as, there shall be no prejudice caused in the event the survey is conducted and the extent of land, as per the documents submitted by the petitioner and the 3rd party, is demarcated. It would further enable to untangle the boundary dispute/possession and the extent of possession, if any, between the petitioner and the 3rd party. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. I.A.Nos.2, 4 and 5 of 2025 There interlocutory applications are dismissed. _____ HN,J NKA