Sri Babureddy vs Smt. Lakshmamma

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner exercising his appellate power setting aside certain phodi proceedings taken by the-second Respondent - The Technical Assistant - Laud Survey - Incharge Deputy Director of Land Records at the instance of the Petitioner but in an appeal preferred by the first Respondent, that having been set aside and that too as submitted by Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, without notice to the Petitioner the impugned order is not. sustainable in law, has to be set aside etc...

Submission of Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty. learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that though the order recites notice had been issued, in fact, the Petitioner never received any notice and therefore the order is one in violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained etc...

Proceedings in the nature of phoding which is one for resurveying the land and dividing the existing survey number is only for proper identification of the subject land and to identify the person from whom the revenue assessment can be collected and in a matter of this nature where the dispute relating to boundary or title cannot be gone into, even assuming that the Deputy Commissioner has remanded the matter to the original authority for resurvey and rephoding, it cannot be said that such an order has so very adversely affected the interest of the Petitioner and I do not find any need to interfere in a matter of this nature.

It is open to the Petitioner to participate in the proceedings now remanded to the original authority and put forth his version before the authority.

Though Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that it involves additional expenditure, purchasers of immovable property have to put up with such inconveniences and the situations of this nature is nothing but occupational hazards of owners of the immovable property.

Writ petition is dismissed.