ORDER :

Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions and the parties are same, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the Writ Petitions by way of this common order.

2. Writ Petition No.7114 of 2011 is filed questioning the notice in Ref.No.B/95/2021 dated 10.03.2021 issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar directing the writ petitioner to appear before him along with the documents, which are possessed by her regarding the land of an extent of Acs.2.83 cents in Sy.No.496/2 on the application/representation made by Puli Venkata Ramana, who is arrayed as 5th respondent herein. On the ground that once the application submitted under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1971, having exercised the power under Section 5(3 of the Act, 9171, the Tahsildar would ceases to be an authority and the person felt aggrieved with such mutation and issuance of the pattadar passbook and title deeds, is entitled to avail the remedy provided under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971, before the 3rd respondent or to invoke the remedy available under Section 8(2) of the Act, 1971, and hence, the Tahsildar being a primary authority cannot review his own order which was passed having exercised the powers conferred under Section 5(3) of the Act, 1971, and the impugned notice does contain any provision of law and hence, prayed to set aside the impugned notice dated 10.03.2021.

3. Writ Petition No.16496 is filed assailing the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer directing the petitioner herein to appear before him on 06.08.2021 with all relevant records for conducting survey. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition came to be filed on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (hereinafter called, „the Act, 1923) and the circular in RC.No.N1/6543/99 dated 25.07.2001, as well as the Board Standing Orders BSO 34-A, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, who is an appellate authority, and whereas the Tahsildar, who is competent authority to issue such notice for conducting survey and demarcation is casted on the Tahsildar. Hence, the said notice is quite contrary to the above provisions of the Act, 1923, and prayed to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the notice dated 29.07.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5 filed the original patta issued in favour of the writ petitioner and would contend that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent and the unofficial respondent has fabricated the document which was issued in his favour and no patta was issued in favour of the writ petitioner and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Sri P.Subash, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, filed counter and would contend that the land in Sy.No.496 consists of an extent of Acs.4.36 cents of C.Polimerapalli of Chinnamandem Mandal, is classified as dotted land (A.W.D.) and the land was subdivided as Sy.No.496/1 in an extent of Acs.1.53 cents and Sy.No.496/2 of an extent of Acs.2.83 cents in the year 1972 and the land in Sy.No.496/2 in an extent of Acs.2.83 cents was assigned in the name of Puli Lakshmanna, vide DKT No.784/88 dated 31.07.1978 as per the entries made in Performa-I register and after death of the original pattadar Puli Lakshmanna EPPB was issued to his son, viz., Puli Venkata Ramana, vide 1B Khata No.170 and the same was uploaded in the web land and it was digitally signed. It is further contended that on the application made by Puli Venkata Ramana for conducting of survey, the Mandal Surveyor has visited the land and reported that Sri Puli Venkata Ramana having possessed over the land in Sy.No.496/2 in an extent of Acs.1.98 cents and Smt. Gudi Chandramma (petitioner herein) having possession in an extent of Ac.0.85 cents and after survey, the DKT pattadar Sri Puli Venkata Ramana has approached the 4th respondent on 05.03.2021 and submitted a