THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 31269 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in interfering with the property bearing House No. 18-7-739/33/B/1, admeasuring 454.4 sq. yards situated at Kandikal village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District, without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner as bad in law and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere and demolish the said property without following due process of law. The case of the petitioner is that a plot of land was acquired by his ancestors in Bandlaguda village in 1350 Fasli and from that time onwards, the petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land. It is stated that the land was put to agricultural operations in an extent of Ac.4.35 gts and that the land is situated in Sy. No.263. However, since the respondents have suddenly descended on the property of the petitioner and started interfering with his right of peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, the present writ petition has been brought about. It must be stated that the petitioner has disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, particularly in paragraph (5) that his predecessors have filed an injunction suit by instituting OS No. 1836 of 1998 on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. But, however, the said suit was subsequently dismissed for default and no steps are taken thereafter for pursuing the said case as one of the predecessors in interest died and the respondents have also stopped interfering. The case of the petitioner is that the Municipal Corporation has assessed the property to tax and that they have been collecting taxes for the property ever since 2003. It is also stated that the government has taken a stand saying that the property has not been subject matter of declaration under the Urban Land Ceiling Act whereas the property being agricultural land was not required to be so disclosed under the Urban Land Ceiling declaration. The Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It is stated in paragraph (5) of the said counter affidavit that Town Survey of Kandikal village was conducted during the year 1966-67 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1924. Further, the final check operation was conducted by the Special Deputy Collector by publishing notices and inviting objections and the town survey was subsequently implemented. The details of Sy. No. 242/P was also notified in Gazette No. 35, dated 29.3.1976. As per TSLR (Town Survey Land Record) corresponding TS No. 97, Block-D, Ward No. 272 of Kandikal village correlates to Old Sy. No. 242/P of Kandikal village and it was recorded as `Government vacant land’ in the corresponding columns. It was further stated that as per the Khasra Pahani Sy. No. 242/P admeasuring Ac.14.22 gts was recorded as “Kabrasthan” and therefore the 2nd respondent would urge that there appears to be some confusion in the mind of the petitioner with regard to exact location of the land that might be belonging to him. It is pointed out that the old Sy.No. 263 is correlated to TS No.30, Block H, Ward No. 272. It was further asserted that the surveyor, has in fact undertaken physical inspection and prepared a sketch clearly showing the extents of land in each of the town survey numbers. It is pointed out that land forming part of Old Sy. No. 263 of Kandikal village is on the south eastern side of the sketch whereas land in old Sy. No. 242/P is on to the north western side of the sketch and in that land a small extent of 375 sq. yards is allotted to the School Education Department for it to construct a school building there. From the pleadings set up above, which are referred to, what emerges is that there appears to be some confusion with regard to the exact location of the land belonging to the petitioner on the one hand and that of the Kabrasthan in old Sy.No. 242. The sketch which is enclosed at page No.13 of the material papers filed in support of the vacate stay application of the 2nd respondent has clearly pointed out the land in old Sy. No. 242 in contrast to the land in old Sy. No. 263. Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act empowers the State Government or any other officer or authority to whom such powers may be delegated by the State Government, may by notification order a survey of any government land or any such boundary of such lands or boundary forming the common limit of government land and land that is not government land. Further, Section 7 enables the Survey Officer to carry out the survey in the prescribed manner. The findings of the Survey Officer to determine and record as undisputed any boundary is also an appealable one. Therefore while vacating the interim orders granted on 13.12.2010 by this court, I direct the respondents not to undertake any demolition of the structures existing on the land for a period of 15 days from today. In the meantime, the District Collector, Hyderabad District, will direct a Survey Officer to undertake survey of the land in question on 18.4.2011 any time after 11 AM in the morning in the presence of the petitioner or the authorized representative be permitted and in his presence the boundary marking be effected with regard to the land of the government, called earlier as “Kabrasthan” and situate in old Sy. No. 242 and the land which does not belong to the government in Sy No. 263. Only based upon the findings recorded at that survey and after furnishing a copy of the said survey report to the petitioner, any structures which are not otherwise liable to be allowed on land belonging to government can be demolished. It is needless to observe that if the findings of the survey go contra to the wishes of the writ petitioner’s interest; he is entitled to prefer an appeal and pursue all such remedies as are available to him under law. Wit this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Knk 11th April 2011 Note: CC in (2) days (b/o) knk