SIDDAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Sy.No.5 of Rampur village, totally measured 28 acres 38 guntas and was hissa phodied into 3 hissa viz., Sy.No.5(b) measuring 7 acres 9 guntas and Sy.No.5(k) measuring 7 acres 10 guntas. Out of the said land, certain extent of land was acquired in the year 1980 for Upper Krishna Project and at the time of acquisition, a joint survey was carried out by the competent officers of Upper Krishna Project and fresh hissas were assigned to the extent acquired and to the remaining extent of each of the land holders, a joint survey was carried out and the location of each of the hissas and the acquired hissas were clearly demarcated by a map. The acquisition notification and the joint survey report conducted at the time of acquisition are produced at Annexure-B series by the petitioner. Despite the clear demarcation of the extent and location of the hissa of the petitioner at the time of acquisition, certain false hissa phodi and Form No.10 came into existence and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records who, vide his order dtd. 28/8/2013 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and cancelled all the hissa phodi records and directed the Tahsildar to prepare a fresh Form No.10 as per the survey conducted at the time of acquisition of the lands in question. The said order has attained finality. The petitioner thereafterwards has given number of representations to the Tahsildar to comply the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records vide Annexure-C. The petitioner had also given representation to the higher officers, who in turn had directed the Tahsildar to comply the orders passed vide Annexure-C by the Deputy Director of Land Records. However, the Tahsildar contrary to the directions issued by the Deputy Director of Land Records as per Annexure-C has now held a fresh survey and submitted a report as per Annexure-F. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar is bound by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records as per Annexure-C and the impugned survey report, which has now been submitted by him, is not in compliance of the said order and therefore, the survey report cannot be sustained.