J. RAMBABU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(2.) Undisputedly, the property was purchased by late Joga Rama Swamy under registered sale deed dated 15.03.1936, Registered as Document No.393/1936. Copy of the registered document is produced to establish that the property was purchased by late Joga Rama Swamy and besides that, several other revenue records and General Power of Attorney executed by Petitioner Nos.1 to 10 in favour of Petitioner No.11 is also placed on record to establish that Petitioner No.11 was authorized to apply for demarcation and to take necessary legal action to protect the property. The respondents did not dispute purchase of the property and authority of Petitioner No.11 to apply for survey and demarcation of the property by making F-Line application dated 28.05.2020 and its rejection by Respondent No.4/Tahsildar under the impugned Endorsement FL.No.:FL/11656/2020 dated 13.08.2020.

(3.) It is an undisputed fact that, Petitioner No.11, being a General Power of Attorney Holder, made an F-Line Application on behalf of Petitioner Nos. 1 to 10 for conducting survey after sub- division of the property of an extent of Ac.2-98 cents in Sy.No.61-2 (new) and 79/1 (old) of Chittivalasa village fields, Beemunipatnam Mandal, Beemunipatnam Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam District. But, the total land is in an extent of Ac.31-20 cents in Sy.No.61/2 (new) and 79/1 (old) of Chittivalasa village fields, Beemunipatnam Mandal, Beemunipatnam Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam District. Whereas, late Joga Rama Swamy purchased land of an extent of only Ac.2-98 cents out of Ac.31-20 cents in Sy.No.61-2 (new) and 79/1 (old) of Chittivalasa village fields, Beemunipatnam Mandal, Beemunipatnam Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam District. As seen from the document of title, the said late Joga Rama Swamy purchased Ac.2-98 cents, as shown in the schedule annexed to the document and it is extracted hereunder: