Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Ch. Satyanaryana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 July, 2021

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

             HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                     WRIT PETITION No.27461 of 2018


ORDER: (Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App (Virtual) mode, since
this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic)

         The present writ petition is filed inter alia challenging the in action of

the 3rd and 4th respondents in conducting survey and demarcation of the

land in Survey No.328/1b admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.36 ½ cents

situated in the Reddygudem village and mandal, Krishna District, as illegal,

arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of

India.

2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the land in question

having purchased the same for valuable consideration through a Registered

Sale Deed document No.572/11 dated 08.01.2014 and that he is in

continuous possession of the subject land without interruption from any

corner. He also claims that his name has been duly mutated in revenue

records, pattadar pass book and title deeds recognizing his ownership and

possessory rights in respect of the subject land were issued to him by the

revenue officials. His grievance in the present writ petition is that though

he had applied for demarcation of the said land, the 4th respondent has not

been taking necessary action for the purpose of demarcation and fixation of

boundaries. He further claims that though the 3rd respondent-Revenue

Divisional Officer directed the 4th respondent to complete the survey and

demarcation, the same was not complied by the 4th respondent. Under the

said circumstances, he is constrained to approach this Court, seeking

appropriate directions. Hence, this writ petition.

W.P.No.27461 of 2018 NJS,J

3. Contradicting the averments made in the writ petition, the 4th

respondent filed a counter affidavit sworn on 01.09.2018 inter alia stating

that an extent of Ac.11.69 cents in R.S.No.328/1B is a patta land and the

Mandal Surveyor, Reddygudem reported that the petitioner is in enjoyment

only to an extent of Ac.4.69 cents though he purchased an extent of

Ac.6.37 ½ cents in the said survey number and the remaining extent of

Ac.7.00 cents is under the enjoyment of his neighbouring ryot by name Sri

Gogulamudi Krishna Reddy. It is also stated that the Mandal Surveyor,

Reddygudem has further reported that a Civil Suit in O.S.No.169 of 2017 is

pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzividu, regarding the title

of land in R.S.No.328/1B of Reddygudem village and that on 03.06.2018,

he reported that there is a difference between the extents mentioned in the

registered document and actual possession of the property on ground and

as the adjacent ryot has raised objection for fixation of boundaries stating

that a title dispute is pending, the boundaries were not fixed. It is further

stated that the above said aspects were informed to the 3rd respondent vide

proceedings in R.C.No.B312/2016 dated 08.06.2018 marking a copy to the

petitioner, but the letter addressed to him was returned back by the postal

department as the petitioner is not residing in the address given in his

earlier application. Thus, it is categorically stated that as there is a

difference with regard to the extent mentioned in the registered document

and physical possession of the property on ground and a civil suit is

pending, boundaries were not fixed in respect of the subject matter land.

4. A rejoinder dated 13.03.2020 was filed by the petitioner stating inter

alia that he has no knowledge as to whether any suit in O.S.No.169 of 2017

is filed and pending before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nuzividu, as no

W.P.No.27461 of 2018 NJS,J

summons were received and further that the said Gogulamudi Krishna

Reddy must have influenced the Mandal Surveyor to write about the

particulars of the said plaint, that the Mandal Surveyor is not prepared to

conduct survey and fix the boundaries even after a letter dated 06.03.2018

was addressed by the 3rd respondent for fixation of boundaries of the

petitioner's land. While stating that the Adangals maintained by the

revenue-authorities clearly show that the petitioner is in possession of

Ac.6.37 cents in Survey No.328/1B1, the petitioner submits that the

averments in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is in possession of

only extent of Ac.4.69 cents is not tenable.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue, representing the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments

made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition submits that the

action on the part of the respondents in not considering the representation

of the petitioner for survey and demarcation of the land in question is not

just or tenable. He submits that as per the provisions of the A.P.Survey

and Boundaries Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the

authorities are duty bound to conduct survey and fix the boundaries. The

learned counsel submits that the petitioner purchased the land in question

through a registered Sale Deed and the revenue officials have also issued

pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the same. He submits that

the survey cannot be rejected on the mere ground of pendency of suit or

on the ground that a dispute was raised by one of the neighbouring ryots.

W.P.No.27461 of 2018 NJS,J

7. The learned counsel in support of his contentions, placed reliance on

the decisions of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v.

Collector, Hyderabad District and another1, Khaja Naseeruddin

and others v. Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land

Records, Hyderabad and others2, Golli Nagayamma and others v.

State of Andhra Pradesh and others3 and Muramalla Padmavathi v.

State of Andhra Pradesh and others4.

8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader on the other hand

submits that the respondents in the light of facts and circumstances set out

in the counter-affidavit have not conducted the survey and therefore the

same cannot be found fault with.

9. The case set out in the counter-affidavit and a reading of the

communication addressed by the 4th respondent dated 08.06.2018 to the

3rd respondent would go to show that survey as sought for by the petitioner

could not conducted for the reasons inter alia in view of the pendency of

suit and objection raised by the said Gogulamudi Krishna Reddy. However,

the said communication was not served on the petitioner and therefore the

same is of no consequence. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that

in the absence of any specific provision in the Act barring conduct of survey

and fixation of boundaries during the pendency of a suit or an order

restraining the conduct of the same by a competent Court, the contentions

raised in the counter-affidavit cannot be countenanced.

2001(3) ALT 200

2007(1) ALT 707

2015(4) ALT 98

2016(3) ALT 653

W.P.No.27461 of 2018 NJS,J

10. The proceedings under the Act are not conclusive proof of title to the

immovable property. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the

expression of the learned single Judge in Hyderabad Potteries's case (1

supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner which reads thus:

"21. A bare reading of scheme of the A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 would make it clear that the survey made under the said Act is mainly intended for the purposes of identification of the lands and fixation of boundaries. There is no provision under the Act intending to make any detail enquiries with regard to the right, title and interest of the persons in the lands. It is neither the object nor the scheme of the said Act."

11. Further in another judgment in Golli Nagayamma's case (3 supra),

while referring to the attending facts and circumstances of the case with

regard to direction of the appellate authority to conduct survey during the

pendency of the appeal filed by the respondents in the writ petition and suit

filed by the petitioner therein, a learned single Judge was not inclined to

interfere with the notice proposing to conduct survey and dismissed the writ

petition. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

"7. The controversy with respect to boundaries between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 4 to 7 on the other hand, is also required to be settled in order to effectively deal with the appeal pending before respondent No.3. It is in that context that respondent No.3 has ordered a survey to be conducted. The conducting of such survey, as per the field measurement book and determination of boundaries, in my view, would not cause any prejudice to any of the parties and the resolution of the dispute with respect to boundaries would enable the appellate authority to effectively deal with the appeal pending before it. Hence, the intervention by this Court,

W.P.No.27461 of 2018 NJS,J

against the impugned notice, is not called for and the survey is required to be conducted accordingly."

12. In the light of the above mentioned legal position, this Court is of the

opinion that no prejudice would be caused if a direction is issued to the

respondents to conduct survey and fix the boundaries in respect of the land

in question by issuing appropriate notices.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th

respondent to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation for

conduct of survey of the subject matter land and fixation of boundaries

thereto, after issuing appropriate notice to the said Gogulumudi Krishna

Reddy as also to all the concerned neighbouring land owners who are likely

to be affected by the said survey, within a period of eight (8) weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with