Gangaraju Venkata Rama Raju vs Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records and Others

B. Prakash Rao, J.—Heard both the Counsel at the admission stage. Respondent No. 4 has filed the counter-affidavit. With the consent of both the Counsel, the main writ petition is being disposed of.

This writ petition is the third in sequence wherein the petitioner seeks the relief for demarcating the land claimed by him in Survey No. 1908, dry, of an extent of Ac. 4-00 out of Ac. 7.01 cents Survey No. 1911/1A, of an extent of Acs. 14.80 cents out of Acs. 22.93 cents situated at Kodur West, near Desettypalli village Kodur Mandal, Cuddapah District having purchased under a registered sale deed dt. 1-3-1952. The petitioner, having purchased the said lands, sought for demarcation of the lands through various representations filed earlier. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition No. 28562 of 1997 as per orders dated 18-1-1997 directing the respondents to dispose of the said representations for demarcating the boundaries between the petitioner and his neighbouring lands by a qualified Surveyor or Inspector of Survey at an early date preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. However, in spite of the said direction and the petitioner making once again representations, and no demarcation as such having been done, the petitioner had filed a second writ petition and this Court as per orders in W.P. No. 18380 of 1997 dt. 10-9-1997 disposed of the same after hearing the parties to the following effect;

"In the present writ petition, the petitioner complains that the direction issued to the aforementioned two officials is not complied with. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the direction is not carried out because the lower officials are colluding with the neighbours of the petitioner. It is also pointed out in the affidavit that the petitioners on 16-6-97 and again on 29-6-97 submitted representations to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking the same relief which they sought in their earlier application submitted to the fourth respondent and the Inspector, Survey, Office of the District Survey and Land Records, Cuddapah. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that there is absolutely no justification for the fourth respondent not to carry out the direction issued by this Court. Since the petitioner has made representation to the higher-ups in the administration, viz., respondents 1 to 3, I think that ends of justice would be met by directing them to implement the direction issued by this Hon''ble Court earlier, without any further loss of time and within a time frame. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of the representations of the petitioner dt. 16-6-1997 and 29-6-1997 after demarcating the boundaries between the petitioner''s and his neighbours'' lands through a qualified surveyor or Inspector of Survey, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs."

From the above directions, it is evident that the petitioner had complained about the inaction and the alleged collusion of the lower officials with the neighbouring land owners, with whom the dispute exists. Accordingly, the direction was given to respondents 1 to 3 viz., the Commissioner of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Kurnool and the Joint Collector, Cuddapah, for the purpose of demarcating the boundaries between the petitioner and his neighbours'' lands. The petitioner now complains that no notice was given to him and the impugned order dt. 20-1-1998 was passed by the respondent No. 4 herein. It shows that in spite of service of notice dated 5-10-1997, the petitioner refused to come to the spot as he could not attend the survey in the absence of his son and due to ill-health. The respondent No. 4 proceeded to demarcate and prepare the sub-division records.

The respondent No. 4 in his counter-affidavit has stated that in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not attend and, therefore, they had to proceed with the demarcation process.

It is to be noticed that the earlier directions of this Court issued in W.P. No. 18380 of 1997 dated 10th September, 1997 were only against respondents 1 to 3 as pointed out earlier but not against respondent No. 4 viz., the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Cuddapah, who passed the impugned orders. Even though the petitioner states that no notice was served on him, the fact remains that he could not attend the survey and the fourth respondent was posted with the reason for his absence viz., the absence of his son and ill-health. When the direction was specifically given by this Court against respondents 1 to 3 in view of the circumstances as noted earlier in the order, there is no reason or any justification for the fourth respondent herein once again to proceed with the demarcation process and pass the impugned orders. I have perused the records submitted on behalf of the respondents. I do not find any specific notice issued on 5-10-1997 and the acknowledgment thereof. However, on 5-10-1997, the Mandal. Surveyor has recorded the statement of the petitioner. If that be so, the question of issuing a notice on 5-10-1997 itself would not arise and it cannot be a proper one for conducting any such enquiry. Any enquiry to be held in the process of demarcation should be preceded by a proper notice with due and sufficient opportunity. Be that as it may, the fourth respondent has proceeded against and in the teeth of the earlier order of this Court dated 10th September, 1997 and there is no explanation forth coming as to why the said directions are not complied with by the respondent 1 to 3 against whom the directions were given for the purpose of demarcating the boundaries. Therefore, it is apparent that the impugned action on the part of the fourth respondent is bad and it is accordingly set aside as it neither complies the earlier direction nor the principles of natural justice.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 herein to proceed with demarcation process and enquiry in terms of the directions already issued earlier on 10th September, 1997 in W.P. No. 18380 of 1997 by giving due and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the entire process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.