Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr. Manimala Srinivasula Redd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 September, 2020
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.16505 of 2020
ORDER:(Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App(virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 Pandemic).
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr.V.Vinodh K.Reddy, representing respondent Nos.4 and 8 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondent Nos.1,5,6 and 7. With the consent of all the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 8 in removing the petitioner's compound wall on the eastern side of the petitioner's site situated in Survey No.392 of Podalakur village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and proceeding for the construction of Rythu Bharosa Kendram by encroaching upon the petitioner's site of a width of 2 feet and length of 20 feet without following the procedure as per the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to construct the Rythu Bharosa Kendram in the said property.
The petitioner claims that he purchased house site in Survey No.392 of an extent of Ac.0.37 cents situated at Podalakur village vide Registered Sale Deed dated 22.05.1985 and the boundaries in respect of the said site is East; Panchayat park, West; 18 feet road, South; petitioner's house, North; Police Quarters. The petitioner further claims that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said site and there is a wall belonging to the petitioner on the eastern, western and northern sides of the said site. While so, the respondent Nos.2 to 8 have high 2 handedly removed the compound wall on the eastern side and encroached upon the petitioner's site of a length of 20 feet and width of 2 feet and constructing a Rythu Bharosa Kendram by encroaching upon his site, without issuing any notice or following due process of law, and in that circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in encroaching upon the petitioner's site as mentioned above, without issuing any notice and without paying compensation, is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and constitutes violation of the petitioner's rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The learned counsel places reliance on the letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Podalakur, dated 01.06.2015 wherein he has categorically referred to the land in Survey No.392 of an extent of Ac.7.76 cents is registered in the diglot as patta land and that the same has not been sub-divided and on inspection, it is found that the wall which is in dispute belongs to the petitioner(Manimala Srinivasula Reddy, S/o.Dasaradha Rami Reddy) by way of registration and that the same is situated in Survey No.392 which is a patta land. In the said letter, it is also mentioned that as per the report of Mandal Deputy Surveyor, the compound wall is situated in the patta land of Sri Manimala Srinivasula Reddy in Survey No.392. The learned counsel for the petitioner under the said circumstances contends that the action of the respondents is not permissible in law and the petitioner is entitled for compensation, as stated in the writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the land in question is a Government land and construction is being undertaken in the Government land only and not in the private land as alleged by the petitioner. He also points out that the document filed in the writ petition 3 is not a sale deed but a settlement deed and the boundaries as mentioned therein are not tallying with the description given by the petitioner. He further submits that the panchayat is also undertaking necessary action on the issue of the title of the petitioner in respect of the land in question as the claim made by the petitioner is not correct. With reference to the letter on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, the learned Standing Counsel submits that no report in that regard has been filed by the petitioner and therefore the letter which is addressed in 2015 to the Station House Officer cannot be a basis for the petitioner's claim in the present writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that the construction of the Rythu Bharosa Kendam and Village Secretariat has already been undertaken and there is significant progress in the work. At this juncture, if any interim orders granted as prayed for, the same would hamper the welfare activities sought to be undertaken through the said facilities.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that since there is a dispute with regard to the boundaries, if a survey is directed to be conducted, the issue would be resolved.
Considering the submissions made by all the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 to conduct survey with regard to the land in question, after giving due notice and opportunity to the petitioner. After conduct of the survey and depending on the report of the respondent No.3, it would be open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, if so, advised.
Till conduct of survey by the respondent No.3 and submission of report, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo in respect of 4 construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram and Village Secretariat in the land in question.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
Date: 17.09.2020 BLV 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.16505 of 2020 Date: 17.09.2020 Note: Issue C.C. by 22.09.2020.
B/o.
BLV