Skip to main content

Govt officials cannot refuse to conduct survey of private land

Justice MS Ramachandra Rao of the Hyderabad High Court has ruled that the officials of survey department are bound to conduct survey of private land if anyone makes such a request after paying the required charges.

Authorities cannot deny this facility to people citing provisions of the AP Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, he said, in his judgement pronounced in a case filed by M Padmavathy of East Godavari district.

The petitioner challenged the denial of the survey officials in conducting survey of her land and also to demarcate the boundaries. The officials were citing the provisions of the Survey Act which did not ask them anywhere to conduct survey of private land. The judge in his order pointed out that the Act, at the same time, did not say anywhere that they should not do it. Just as experts in DNA analysis, ballistics and handwriting are extending their expertise to private persons even when they are working with the government, the experts of survey wing too must extend their services.

Therefore, several circulars and GOs issued by the revenue department which directed the survey wing to conduct survey of private land are binding on the survey authorities, he said.

The judge also referred to the AP high court judgement in Hyderabad Potteries Pvt Ltd vs Collector, Hyderabad District, and said that the scheme of the AP Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, would make it clear that the survey made under Survey Act is mainly intended for the purposes of identification of the land and fixation of boundaries and there is no provision under the said Act for making any detailed enquiries with regard to right, title and interest of the persons in the land. If anyone is aggrieved by the decision of the survey authorities, they need not file their appeals before the survey commissioner as is being normally done. There is an appellate authority constituted under the Act and people can approach that authority and invoke section 11 of the Act, he said.

If the survey is sought by a person, after issuing notice to parties interested and in particular the registered holders of land, the concerned official should conduct survey and demarcation in their presence, Justice Rao said and directed the survey authorities in East Godavari district to conduct survey as per the request made by the petitioner.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a