Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rami Reddy vs Ramanaiah on 24 September, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010001162019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 23/2019
Between:
Rami Reddy and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Ramanaiah and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. O MANOHER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. G VENKATESWARLU
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The 1st respondent herein, claiming ownership over Ac.3.96 cents in
Sy.No.1145, Epuru Bit-II Village, Venkatachalam Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore
District, sought demarcation of his land and applied to the Tahsildar and
Mandal Surveyor for conducting a survey and to demarcate his land.
2. The 1st respondent, had then approached the erstwhile High Court at
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by
way of W.P.No.41338 of 2018, with a complaint that the Tahsildar and the
Mandal Surveyor, even after issuing a notice to him for conduct of such
survey, had not conducted the survey, which requires the intervention of this
Court.
3. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court, by a judgment,
dated 26.11.2018, had disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the
Tahsildar and the Mandal Surveyor to conduct survey and fix boundaries to
the subject land in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks from
the date of receipt of the order.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein, who are third parties
to the Writ Petition, have filed the present Writ Appeal after obtaining the leave
of this Court.
5. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants would submit that, Sy.No.1145 consists of Ac.23.77 cents out of
which, the 1st appellant had purchased Ac.7.92½ cents by way of a registered
deed of sale, dated 07.07.1971 and the 2nd appellant had purchased Ac.4.00
cents of land by way of a registered deed of sale, dated 25.08.1981.
6. He contends that the appellants have serious objections to the conduct
of any survey in as much as the said survey would not be in accordance with
the Board Standing Orders 31, 34-A as well as the provisions of the Andhra
Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.
7. The learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to
Board Standing Orders 31 & 34-A to contend that whenever there is any
change of title in land forming part of any survey number, the said change
would have to be intimated to the appropriate Surveyor and the revenue
authorities for conduct of sub-division proceedings, wherein the boundaries of
the sub-divisions are to be fixed. He would submit that, it is only when such a
process has been completed that a Surveyor can demarcate boundaries of
such sub-division of a survey or demarcate the boundaries of the entire survey
number.
8. He would also submit that there has been no such sub-division carried
out in Sy.No.1145 and more specifically, sub-division in relation to the land
being claimed by the 1st respondent.
9. In such circumstances, it is contended that the direction of the learned
Single Judge to conduct a survey would not be in accordance with law.
10. In view of the Board Standing Orders cited above, it is clear that the
survey of any land by a Mandal Surveyor or a Surveyor of the Survey and
Settlements Department of the Government can only conduct survey to
demarcate the sub-divisional boundaries of a survey number or to demarcate
the boundaries of the survey number itself. For this purpose, it would be
necessary that, there must be a pre-existing sub-division of the land in the
survey number.
11. In the present case, no such sub-division appears to have been done
and consequently, the Mandal Surveyor would not be in a position to carry out
any survey, which would be in accordance with the Board Standing Orders or
Survey Boundaries Act, 1923.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.41338 of 2018, dated
26.11.2018.
13. However, it would be open to the 1st respondent to take such steps as
are permissible in law, for sub-division of the survey number.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
Date:24.09.2024
KPV
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO:23 of 2019
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
24.09.2024
KPV
