IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 14865 of 2014 BETWEEN Shaik Ameer John AND ... PETITIONER The Tahsildar, Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner claims that he was allotted house site of Ac.0-08 cents in T.S.No.665/7-A bearing Plot No.2 at Tenali Municipality under proceedings of respondent No.4 in Rc.No.5960/82 dated 15.08.1982. Petitioner states that he raised a thatched house and has been residing there and paying taxes. He, however, states that in his absence his thatched house was removed by third parties and some unknown persons have set up a cycle stand. Petitioner, therefore, made application to respondent No.3 on 27.06.2011 seeking removal of encroachment. He also approached respondent No.4, whereby respondent No.4 asked the petitioner to deposit Rs.450/- by way of challan towards fee for conducting the survey and in turn issued a memo dated 06.11.2013 proposing to conduct survey on 13.11.2013 jointly with Mandal Surveyor, Tenali and Town Surveyor, Tenali. The present writ petition is, however, filed seeking a direction against inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and also alleging that no action is taken for eviction of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and for restoration of possession to the petitioner.
3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 denying the averments of the petitioner that they are in possession of the aforesaid land. Respondent No.5, on the contrary, further states that he got lease of cycle stand-1 granted by the RTC Bus stand in the year 1978 and continued till 1985. The cycle stand-2, however, was never in possession of the petitioner. It is denied that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are encroachers, as alleged, and on the contrary, it is stated that APSRTC demarcated 74.5 feet X 55 feet of its land to provide additional parking place for cycles and termed it as cycle stand-2. Cycle stand-1 and cycle stand-2 were separately auctioned. In substance, therefore, respondent Nos.5 and 6 claimed that the land claimed by the petitioner is in possession of RTC, who have a cycle stand.
4. However, that issue, at the moment, appears to be not relevant, inasmuch as respondent No.4, Tahsildar, had issued a memo proposing to conduct joint survey. The identification and demarcation of Ac.0-08 cents of land in T.S.No.665/7-A admeasuring Ac.0-08 cents equivalent to 384 sq.yds., is, therefore, required to be first localized on ground. Only after localization, the further steps are required to be taken if really the petitioner is dispossessed and if somebody else is in possession. That is a matter, therefore, need not immediately arise for consideration, at this stage, since respondent No.4 has already proposed to conduct survey as per the memo dated 06.11.2013.
I do not see any reason for any of the respondents to object to the said survey, particularly, in view of the claim of respondent Nos.5 and 6 that they are not in possession of any part of the land.
5. In view of that, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to conduct joint survey expeditiously as proposed in the memo, dated 06.11.2013, after due notice to all the persons likely to have interest in the said survey including the RTC and then conduct survey by fixing the date and after obtaining the survey report take such necessary steps as are required to be taken.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 4, 2014 LMV