A survey of private land cannot be conducted solely at the request of a private individual under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act without a clear title claim; civil disputes must be resolved through civil courts.

JUDGMENT :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

Heard Sri B. V. Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for Smt. J. Madhavi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri K. V. Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents and Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Amicus Curiae.

2. The appellant herein claims ownership and possession of two extents of land admeasuring Ac.6.75 cents and Ac.5.05 cents, aggregating to Ac.11.80 cents in Sy.No.132/1 of Kona Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District. These lands are said to have been purchased by the appellant, by way of a deed of sale, dated 04.07.2007, bearing document No.3509/2007 and another deed of sale, dated 18.01.2008, bearing document No.250/2008.

3. The appellant has approached this Court with the complaint that the Deputy Inspector of Survey, in the office of the District Collector, Machilipatnam, had pasted a notice on 09.09.2024, informing the appellant that a survey of the land would have to be conducted at the behest of the private 6^th respondent, under the provisions of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (here-in-after referred to as the “1923 Act”).

4. The complaint of the unofficial 6^th respondent is that, she is the owner of about Ac.2.00 of land, which is in the illegal possession of the appellant, and that the appellant should be evicted from this land and the same should be handed over to the unofficial 6^th respondent, after due survey.

5. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that it would only be appropriate that a survey be conducted in as much as the unofficial 6^th respondent was also claiming title through a deed of sale and only a survey could resolve the issue.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 12.09.2024, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal.

7. This Court, by an order, dated 30.09.2024, had stayed the conduct of such survey. In view of the questions of law that arise in the present case, this Court had requested Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel to act as Amicus Curiae in the matter.

8. The issue before this Court was whether a survey of a private land, at the request of a private individual, could be conducted under the provisions of the 1923 Act. In the event that there is no such provision, whether any survey should be conducted under any other provision of law or guidelines set out by the Revenue Department.

9. The question of whether a survey could be conducted under the provisions of the 1923 Act came up before a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of RachakondaNagaiah vs Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others, [ 2013 (3) ALD 156 ]

10. The learned Single Judge, after analyzing the provisions of the 1923 Act, had held that there was no power to conduct a survey, under this Act, of private land and the boundaries of such private land, as there is no specific provision in the Act for conduct of such a survey. This Judgment was assailed, by way of W.A.No.100 of 2013, which came to be allowed on 14.06.2013, by setting aside the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench held that in view of the circular, dated 22.08.2012, issued by the Government, the demarcation of survey Nos. would be sufficient reason for the Revenue Officials to survey the land, on the request made by the parties, subject to their furnishing relevant documents. This view of the Division Bench was follo