P. Janardhanappa vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5432 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        &
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

            I.A.No.2 of 2021 in WRIT APPEAL No.822 of 2021
                                       and
                        WRIT APPEAL No.822 of 2021

                              (Through Physical mode)

P. Janardhanappa, S/o P. Narasappa,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Rama samudram, Madanapalle
Revenue Division, Chittoor District,
and another.
                                                        .. Applicants/appellants
        Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Guntur, and others.
                                                         .. Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. B. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Neeraja S. Reddy.

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4         : GP for Revenue
Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7         : Ms. S. Parineeta


                                  ORAL JUDGMENT

                                  Dt: 22.12.2021

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

I.A.No.2 of 2021 is an application preferred by Mr. P. Janardhanappa

and Ms. P. Thulasamma, who are not parties to the proceedings in

W.P.No.18355 of 2021, seeking leave to prefer the appeal against the order

dated 27.08.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in the said writ

petition.

HCJ & MSM,J

2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein

questioning the action of the authorities in not conducting survey of the

subject land, despite making an application and paying requisite fee. Having

considered the prayer of the writ petitioners and considering that a duty is

cast on the concerned Surveyor to act upon an application filed by a party to

conduct survey as per Section 10(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and

Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act of 1923'), the learned single Judge

allowed the writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4

authorities therein to consider the F-line applications dated 07.09.2020 of

the writ petitioners and conduct the survey in respect of the subject land by

strictly following the procedure contemplated in the Act of 1923 within four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that taking advantage of

the order of the learned single Judge, the writ petitioners are projecting

themselves to be the owners of the land in question though the present

applicants are the lawful owners and possessors thereof. He also points out

that the writ petitioners have also preferred an appeal in relation to mutation

of entries in the revenue records in respect of the subject land, and having

taken note of the pendency of the said appeal, the learned single Judge

ought not to have issued the impugned direction for survey of the subject

land.

4. Having considered the submissions made, we grant leave to the

applicants to prefer the appeal and I.A.No.2 of 2021 is accordingly allowed.

5. Though the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants contends

that the learned single Judge ought not to have directed for conducting

survey of the subject land, despite there being a title dispute as is evident

from pendency of an appeal preferred by the writ petitioners in relation to HCJ & MSM,J

mutation effected in respect of the subject land, it is to be noted that the

learned single Judge has not decided any dispute of title in relation to the

subject land. The direction issued was only to conduct survey of the land by

strictly following the procedure contemplated in the Act of 1923, as the

concerned Surveyor is bound to act upon the application filed by a party to

conduct survey in terms of Section 10(1) of the Act of 1923. In any event, a

perusal of the copy of the notice issued by the Mandal Surveyor, which is

filed as Ex.P6 at Page No.25 of the appeal papers, would go to show that the

applicants herein were also put on notice regarding survey of the subject

land. In such circumstances, the applicants would be at liberty to put forth

their case before the authorities concerned and they would also be at liberty

to avail the remedy of appeal against the decision of the Survey Officer as

provided under the provisions of the Act of 1923. In that view of the matter,

we are of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in this

appeal.

6. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.

Other pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

IBL