Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56660 (AP)

P S VENKATA SUBBA REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/31848/2025 · 2025-11-17

D Ramesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010617092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 31848/2025 Between: 1. P S VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/O SRI R 54 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 7 MADAKASIRA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHI 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HINDUPURDIVISION,SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, LEPAKSHI MANDAL. SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT 5. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, LEPAKSHI MANDAL. 6. B CHOWDESH, S/O. B PEDDA RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O.RTC COLONY, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 31848/2025 P S VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/O SRI RAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT R/O D.NO. 7-18, PAPASANIPALLI VILLAGE, MADAKASIRA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT AT THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HINDUPURDIVISION,SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT THE TAHSILDAR, LEPAKSHI MANDAL. SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, LEPAKSHI B CHOWDESH, S/O. B PEDDA RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O.RTC COLONY, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3208] AM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 18, PAPASANIPALLI VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT AT THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HINDUPURDIVISION,SRI THE TAHSILDAR, LEPAKSHI MANDAL. SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, LEPAKSHI B CHOWDESH, S/O. B PEDDA RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O.RTC COLONY, HINDUPUR, SRI ...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 2 pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in refusing to conduct the survey vide Rc.No FLy351663/2025 of the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac. 1.12 cents situate in S.Y. No. 9/3 as well as Ac. 1.50 cents situate in S.Y No. 5 of Cholasamudram Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct them to conduct the survey and demarcation of the said land 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 to direct the respondent authorities to conduct survey in the petitioners property pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in refusing to conduct the survey vide Rc.No FL/351663/2025 of the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac. 1.12 cents situate in S.Y. No. 9/3 as well as Ac. 1.50 cents situate in S.Y No. 5 of Cholasamudram Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct them to conduct the survey and demarcation of the said land and pass.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 11.07.2025 rejecting the FL application of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of a civil suit. It is submitted that the civil suit filed by the unofficial respondents in O.S. No.177 of 2011, a declaratory suit on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, was already considered and dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2023, and that the said suit was filed by the unofficial respondents against third parties and the petitioner is not a party to the said suit. The said aspect was also brought to the notice of the authorities by way of objections, but despite the same, the respondents have rejected the application of the petitioner vide the impugned order, and hence the present writ petition. 4 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as against the said order, a statutory remedy is provided to the petitioner under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. 5. Considering the submissions and as several factual aspects are involved, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, and this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by way of a statutory appeal. If such appeal is filed, the authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, including the 5th respondent. The notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH Dt.18.11.2025 PNS