IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Puchakatla Tirupathi Rao, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No.5056 of 2023
Decided on : 18-06-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners sought survey and demarcation of land boundaries, which was rejected by the 3rd respondent as not feasible due to neighbor disputes - Court held that authorities must conduct surveys upon request after collecting necessary charges, as established in prior cases. (Paras 4, 8, 9)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized the duty of the Mandal Surveyor to conduct surveys when charges are paid, and the necessity of issuing notices to interested parties before surveying private lands. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, claiming ownership of land, sought a survey for boundary demarcation after disputes arose with adjacent owners, but their requests were denied by the 3rd respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court found the endorsement by the 3rd respondent to be illegal and arbitrary, directing a survey to be conducted within eight weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the authorities were obligated to conduct a survey despite neighbor disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authorities must conduct surveys upon request, following due procedure and notifying all affected parties.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief:
……..”
2. The grievance of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the registered owner of the property bearing in Sy No. 904 for total extent of Ac. 1.68 1½ cents situated Kavali Bit – I. He has purchased the said property from his lawful vendor vide Regd. Document No. 131/2002 dated 19.2.2002. On 23.2.2012 the 1st petitioner sold part of the extent Ac. 0.98 ½ cents to Sri Janigarla Mahendra vide Document No. 463/2012 by retaining the remaining extent with him. Further, on 4.2.2015 the 1st petitioner executed gift settlement deed in favour of his wife, who is 2nd petitioner herein for an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents, vide Document No. 373/2015 by retaining left over extent Ac. 0.23 cents and that the 1st petitioner too executed rectification deed in favour of his wife/2nd petitioner herein rectifying wrongly mentioned boundaries in the Gift settlement deed dated 12.12.2012 with correct boundaries vide Doc No. 567/2018 which was registered office of Sub Registrar, Kavali. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner made an application dated 18.10.2022 to the Tahsildar, seeking for sub division of patta in respect of Sy No. 904 for an extent of Ac. 1.68 1½ cents bifurcating 98 ½ cents in favour of Janigarla Mahendra pursuant to registered document No. 463/2012 dated 24.2.2012; and Ac. 0.50 cents in favour of Smt.Puchakatla Bharathi Devi vide Document No. 373/2015 dated 4.2.2015 and rectification deed vide Document No. 567/2018 dated 17.2.2018 by retaining the remaining extent of Ac. 0.23 cents. He further stated that as there is boundary dispute in between him and adjacent owners, he approached the 3rd respondent through "On Line" by paying necessary charges seeking to survey the land and fix up the boundaries. The Thasildar issued an endorsement as if the Mandal Surveyor visited on 7.10.2022 on that date the petitioner and other adjacent owners who raised boundary dispute are present, on enquiry as if it is not feasible for survey for the land in Sy No. 904-1A for an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents, he issued an endorsement say so as if it is not sub divided as if, the adjacent owner is not willing to survey, so that rejected the petitioner request under BSO 34 A Para 20 (a). Similarly the application made by his wife seeking to survey the land in Sy No. 904-1B for an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents is also rejected on the premise as if the adjacent neighbor land owners are not cooperating. Questioning the said endorsements, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
3. Heard Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, as per endorsement, dated 14.11.2022 issued in favour of the petitioners, it was stated that as per Government record, it is not sub divided, but in the endorsement itself shows that Sy.Nos.904-1A Ac 0.20 cents, and 904-1B Ac 0.50 cents which means the land
Authorities must conduct land surveys upon request after collecting necessary charges, even amidst boundary disputes, ensuring due process is followed.
Authorities must conduct land surveys upon request, following due procedure, even amidst boundary disputes.
Court directs land survey with notice, police aid, and SOP for boundary demarcation disputes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.