Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 160 (AP)

Lingala Nageswar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-03-16

NINALA JAYASURYA

body2021
ORDER : Ninala Jayasurya, J. (Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App (virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 Pandemic). 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No. 4 in rejecting the request of the petitioner for conducting survey in respect of the land to an extent of Ac. 0.43 cents in R.S. No. 361/5 situated at Pamulapadu Village, Pedaparapudi Mandal, Krishna District, by an order dated 29.04.2019 without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents to conduct enquiry and survey the land as per the provisions of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rejection of the petitioner's application on 29.04.2019 has been issued without assigning any reasons and further that the same was passed without issuing any notice or without conducting any survey and that the same is not sustainable in law. While referring to the various provisions of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, the learned counsel would submit that when an application is made, the same is required to be considered and survey has to be conducted in the presence of the applicant. In the event, the authority concerned is inclined to reject the application the reasons should be intimated to the applicant, so that he would be in a position to seek recourse to the remedies available in Law. In the present case, as no reasons were assigned, the same is not only violative of principles of natural justice but also depriving the valuable rights of the petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned rejection order dated 29.04.2019 is liable to be dismissed. 4. In the present case, as no reasons were assigned, the same is not only violative of principles of natural justice but also depriving the valuable rights of the petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned rejection order dated 29.04.2019 is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions submits that subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner made another application on 27.02.2021 which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and that in view of the same, the authorities-concerned would take necessary action on the said application. 5. In view of the said submission, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application dated 27.02.2021, strictly in accordance with law and as per the mandatory provisions under A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, within-a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the earlier order rejecting the petitioner's application dated 29.04.2019 is without assigning any reasons, the same in the considered view of this Court is not sustainable and the same is set aside. Therefore, the 4th respondent shall consider the petitioner's application dated 27.02.2021 without taking into account the earlier order of rejection dated 29.04.2019. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications in the writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.