Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 54767 (AP)

Maddu Marthamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/4733/2018 · 2025-11-03

Ninala Jayasurya

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010106762018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 4733 of 2018 Between: 1. MADDU MARTHAMMA, W/o.SWAMIDAS, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O PERALIPADU VILLAGE, KARLAPALEM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KARLAPALEM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 3rd respondents in not conducting survey and fixing the boundaries to the petitioner’s land of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Survey No.224/7 of Peralipadu Village of Karlapalem Mandal of Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to the respondent No.3 to conduct survey and fix the boundaries to the land in question. 3. However, at the time of considering the matter, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue states that if any appropriate online application through Mee-Seva is made, the same would be taken into consideration, in accordance with Law by the concerned authority. 4. Though the matter was listed after 2018, instead of keeping the writ petition pending and inviting the instructions / counter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to make appropriate online application as per the procedure in vogue and on receipt of the same, the 3rd respondent shall take appropriate action and intimate the decision under Section 10 (1) and Section 10(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. 3 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 04.11.2025 BLV 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.4733 of 2018 Date: 04.11.2025 BLV