IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27573 of 2014 BETWEEN Vadde Surya Rao AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that he is the owner of 553 square yards of land situated in D.No.139/A, Kaja Grampanchayat, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, and a road is being laid through his land without following due process of law and without complying with the provisions of law relating to acquisition of land. Petitioner has filed a photograph, Ex.P2, together with a sketch map, which shows that NH5 abuts the land and a marking pole is erected on the abutting land.
3. The land claimed by the petitioner is, admittedly, located beyond the pole fixed and away from NH5. However, since petitioner’s specific allegation was that the road is being laid and for that marking was made and the road is being passed through the petitioner’s land, learned Government Pleader was required to get instructions from the Tahsildar, respondent No.4.
4. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the total extent of land in Survey No.139/1A is Ac.348.44 cents. The said land is classified as Inam land, in which Ac.16-00 belongs to Endowments Department, Ac.6-00 cents to Sri Anjaneya Swami Vari Devasthanam, and Ac.10-00 cents to Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam. With regard to the remaining land, there appears to be many transactions including the purchase by the petitioner. It is further specifically stated that since the petitioner’s land is beyond the land, where yellow pole is fixed, there are no proposals pending, as on date, with regard to the petitioner’s patta land.
5. In view of the said specific instructions from respondent No.4, the apprehension of the petitioner, as noted above, is clearly unsustainable as no action is proposed against his patta land. Hence, no further orders are necessary to be passed in this writ petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 18, 2014 LMV