IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21484 of 2001 Between: 1 Lakkala Pothanna, S/o.Oleti Buchappa, Pedda Kammavaripalli Village, H/o.Puttaparthi, Puttaparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 Lakkala Gopalappa, S/o.Oleti Buchappa, Pedda Kammavaripalli Village, H/o.Puttaparthi, Puttaparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. 3 Ch.Gopinath, S/o Ch.Rama Rao ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Divisional Deputy Inspector of Survey & Land Records, Sub-Collector's Office, Penugonda, Anantapur District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Penugonda Division, Anantapur District. 3 Chittinenti Chinnappa @ Chennappa, S/o.late Thippanna, Pedda Kammavaripalli Village, H/o.Puttaparthi, Puttaparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. (died per L.R.) 4 Chittineni Bhavakka ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.PRASAD RAO Counsel for respondents 1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.4: SMT A.CHAYADEVI The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 28-09-2001 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri M.Prasad Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt A.Chayadevi, learned counsel for respondent No.4, who is impleaded in the place of deceased respondent No.3. The petitioners and respondent No.3 were at loggerheads with respect to a piece of property in Survey No.10-4 of Brahmanapalli Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. Respondent No.3 approached respondent No.1 evidently under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) for demarcation of the land over which he is claiming right. In pursuance of the said application, respondent No.1 issued a notice to petitioners 1 and 2 and respondent No.3 for conducting survey and to demarcate the land. Questioning the said notice, petitioners 1 and 2 ﬁled a purported appeal before respondent No.2. By his order dated 28-09-2001, respondent No.2 dismissed the said appeal. Assailing the said order, petitioners 1 and 2 ﬁled the present writ petition. Petitioner No.3, who claimed to have purchased the property in Survey No.10-2 from petitioners 1 and 2, ﬁled an implead application and by order dated 18-09-2008, this Court allowed the said application. At the hearing, Sri M.Prasad Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, is critical on the approach of respondent No.2. The learned counsel stated that respondent No.2 acted as if he is vested with the power of a Civil Court and gave finding regarding the title. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the ﬁndings of respondent No.2. Under Section 10 of the Act, when a boundary is disputed, the Survey Oﬃcer, after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, shall determine the boundary and record it in accordance with his decision, after notice to the parties to the dispute. Under Section 11 of the Act, any person aﬀected by a decision under Section 10 of the Act may appeal to the prescribed oﬃcer. In the present case, it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is competent to conduct survey on an application made by a person and demarcate the boundaries. Such being the case, there was absolutely no need for petitioners 1 and 2 to ﬁle a purported appeal before respondent No.2 under Clause 34-D of the Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Orders. On a careful reading of the said provision, I am of the view that it applies only to cases of resurvey and an appeal before respondent No.2 is maintainable only if revenue record is corrected on the basis of such a resurvey. In the instant case, the application of respondent No.3 squarely falls under Section 10(1) of the Act and respondent No.1 had every jurisdiction to conduct survey and demarcate the boundary after notice to the petitioners and any other interested party. In this view of the matter, ﬁling an appeal before respondent No.2 by petitioners 1 and 2 was totally misconceived and respondent No.2 ought to have rejected the appeal in limini instead of embarking upon adjudication of the appeal ﬁled by petitioners 1 and 2 on merits. Therefore, the impugned order of respondent No.2 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is left free to make survey on the application of respondent No.3. Before conducting such survey, he shall give notices to the petitioners and respondent No.4, who succeeded to respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 shall complete the exercise of survey and demarcation of boundaries, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any of the parties is aggrieved by the report of respondent No.1, he/she shall be free to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 19th September, 2008 vrn