The High Court held that, where authorities have already considered and rejected a land measurement application after inquiry, a writ of mandamus does not lie; the petitioner is relegated to alternative legal remedies. This affirms existing precedent on judicial restraint in exercising writ jurisdiction where administrative remedies are available or exhausted, particularly in the context of land ownership under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/2031/2022 of Nambula Ravanamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, CNR APHC010029142022 |
| Date of Registration | 27-01-2022 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing law on writ jurisdiction restraint |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Land Law / Constitutional (Article 226) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel measurement of land when departmental authorities have already adjudicated. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Once the department has considered and rejected a petitioner’s application for land measurement under statutory procedures, and the petitioner failed to prove possession, the court will not issue a further writ of mandamus. The proper course is for the petitioner to pursue remedies available under law. Issuing a writ in such circumstances is unwarranted when administrative remedies have been exhausted or a decision reached. The High Court exercises restraint and limits interference with administrative findings unless illegality, arbitrariness, or breach of natural justice is established. In this case, the decision on the application was taken after inspection and due process. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner sought a writ for land measurement (0.82 acres in Survey No. 203, Thokapalli Village) under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act. Authorities rejected the application after local enquiry found no possession or ownership by the petitioner. The rejection was communicated through official channels. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar administrative land measurement cases |
| Follows | Affirms doctrine of judicial restraint under Article 226 when administrative alternatives are provided |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that writ of mandamus will not be issued when statutory authorities have duly considered and decided an application, and reasons for rejection have been communicated.
- Where factual findings (e.g., absence of possession or ownership) are made after inquiry, the High Court will not reappreciate such findings in writ jurisdiction.
- Petitioners are explicitly directed to pursue available alternative legal remedies rather than remain in writ jurisdiction.
- Lawyers should exhaust departmental and statutory remedies before invoking Article 226 in land-related disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the petitioner’s application for measurement of land was considered by relevant authorities, who after inspection and inquiry with boundary members, found she had no possession or ownership in the survey number.
- The Mandal Surveyor’s inspection was done in the presence of local persons, and the results communicated through Meeseva, fulfilling statutory and procedural requirements.
- Since administrative authorities have already performed their duty after due process, the Court found no illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of natural justice to warrant interference.
- The petitioner’s remedy, if any, lies elsewhere under law, not through repeated writ petitions for the same relief once a decision has been rendered.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the inaction of authorities in measuring the land as per her application dated 04.09.2021.
- Sought a writ of mandamus for survey and measurement, and issuance of certificate.
Respondents (State / Revenue Authorities)
- Asserted that as per records (RSR, Webland Adangal, ROR1B), the petitioner has no right, possession, or enjoyment with respect to the said land.
- Pointed out that the petitioner’s application was not for F-Line but for land sub-division, and after inspecting with boundary members, the authorities found the petitioner had no land as claimed.
- The application was rejected and intimation given through Meeseva.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed an application dated 04.09.2021 seeking measurement of 0.82 acres in Survey No. 203, Thokapalli Village, under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Upon inspection and inquiry with local boundary members, authorities found that the petitioner had no possession or right over the said land. Based on these findings, the application was rejected and the decision was formally intimated to the petitioner. The writ petition was then filed contesting inaction by authorities.
Statutory Analysis
- The case involved interpretation and application of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.
- The process for measurement and mutation of land was followed, including local inspection, inquiry with boundary members, and communication of findings to the applicant.
- No evidence of violation of Article 14, 21, or 300-A was found since statutory procedure was adhered to and opportunity was given.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principles of writ jurisdiction and judicial restraint under Article 226 are affirmed.