Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.

1. The contesting respondents have filed vacate stay petition viz., W.V.M.P. No. 2298 of 2013. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have made submission in the writ petition itself. Hence, with their consent, the writ petition itself is being disposed of.

2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who are mother and daughter, claim to be owners of an extent of Ac. 0.16 1/2 cents of land in survey No. 225/2 and also an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents of land together with house in Survey No. 225/2 at Narsipatnam Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners 3 to 5 claim to be owners of Ac. 2.60 cents of land in survey No. 225/1 of the same village. It is alleged that respondents 4 to 7, who are adjacent landholders, have unauthorisedly trespassed into the land of the petitioners and cut down the trees. A civil suit for injunction, being O.S. No. 195 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, is also stated to be filed by the petitioners. At the request of petitioners 1 and 2, demarcation and boundaries were fixed by the Mandal Surveyor, Narsipatnam, and he submitted his report dated 14.07.2011 making certain observations against respondents 4 to 7 herein. The said survey report together with sketch appears to have been appealed against by respondents 4 to 7 before the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Respondent No. 3 herein.

3. It is further submitted by the parties that by virtue of orders of this court dated 25.04.2013 in W.P. No. 12696 of 2013 the said appellate authority was directed to disposed of appeal at the earliest and in any event within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the appellate authority, respondent No. 3 herein, issued impugned notice, in the appeal, bearing Rc. No. 14/2011/DIOA dated (sic).07.2013 proposing to conduct survey for fixing the boundaries with respect to Sy. Nos. 225/1 and 225/2. The said notice was issued to all the adjacent landholders including the petitioners as well as respondents 4 to 7. Questioning the said notice, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners.

4. On 04.07.2013, while issuing Rule Nisi, this court followed the earlier order of this court in M. Koteshwar Rao v. Tahsildar (W.P. No. 1180 of 2013 dated 23.01.2013) and consequently, granted interim stay of all further proceedings.

5. The view expressed by the learned single Judge in M. Koteshwar Rao's case, referred to above, was also expressed by the learned single Judge in Rachakonda Nagaiah v. Govt. of A.P. [2013 (3) ALD 156] (WP. No. 38104 of 2012 dated 26.12.2012) and against the said judgment, an appeal, being WA. No. 110 of 2013 was preferred by the petitioner therein before the Division Bench and by judgment dated 14.06.2013, the order of the learned single Judge was set aside and the appeal was allowed directed the Deputy Inspector of Survey to conduct survey of the land. The said judgment of the Division bench was followed by another Division Bench (to which I am a party) in WA. No. 1003 of 2013 dated 16.07.2013. In view of the said decision of the Division Bench, therefore, the ratio in Rachakonda Nagaiah's case as well as in M. Koteshwar Rao's case (referred to above) does not any more survive. In view of that, the interim stay granted by this Court in this writ petition on 04.07.2013 deserves to be vacated and accordingly, WVMP. No. 2298 of 2013 stands allowed.

6. 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 filed 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 th