Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51764 (AP)

SYED MAHABOOB BASHA v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/19294/2025 · 2025-11-13

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010369422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19294/2025 Between: 1. SYED MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O LATE K.S. SYED SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 16-287, RAMAKRISHNA STREET LINE, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MADANAPALLE MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, MADANAPALLE MUNICIPALITY, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. THE TOWN SURVEYOR, MADANAPALLE MUNICIPALITY MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Speaking Order of the 2nd Respondent dt. 16-04-2025 under Roc.No.11/2025/G2 holding that the Petitioner encroached an extent of Ac.0- 01 1/4 cents of land in Survey No.291 of Kammapalle Village, Madanapalle Municipality, Annamayya District, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act and rules made thereunder and violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and consequently set aside the Speaking Order of the 2nd Respondent dt. 16-04- 2025 under Roc.No.11/2025/G2 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of the Speaking Order of the 2nd Respondent dt. 16-04- 2025 under Roc.No.11/2025/G2 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.19294 of 2025 ORDER: This Court directed the 2nd respondent authority to submit the counter by stating that the methodology adopted for conducting the survey and determining the encroachment which is allegedly made by the petitioner. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter and at paragraph 5 states that the petitioner has right of appeal before the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Sub-Collector Office, Madanapalle in the event the petitioner is unsatisfied with the survey. It is also submitted that the methodology adopted by identifying the two cadastral stones is disputed by the petitioner. As such requested to dispose off the present writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to file appeal before the concerned authority. 3. The learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submits that has reported no objection to dispose the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner by preferring appeal before the appellate authority against the survey report. 4. With the above observation the writ petition is disposed off. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer appeal before the appellate authority against the survey report. Till then the impugned order shall stand suspended. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 86 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.19294 of 2025 Dated 14.11.2025 KGM