IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Writ Petition No.20114 of 2002 Between: Smt. Sheela T. Sunagar, W/o. T.H.Sunagar, Rep. by her G.P.A. holder Smt. D.Padmaja Rani, D/o.Basavaiah, aged about 36 years, R/o. New M.L.A. Quarters, Hyderabad. …Petitioner AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District. And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.20114 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner statedly is owner of land admeasuring 1167 Sq.yards in T.S.No.9 and 10 (part) (in Survey No.129 and 334 situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad). She purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 30.06.1966 from Smt.Vijayamani, who in turn had purchased an extent of 6,643 Sq.yards of non-agricultural land out of total extent of land from B.Ramaiah Chowdary and two others. When the staff from office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal claimed that a portion of petitioner’s property belongs to Government, she submitted an application on 22.04.2002 requesting for survey, duly paying necessary stipulated fee. Petitioner was asked to submit survey documents, which she did. Third respondent, thereafter, issued memo dated 22.06.2002 informing that the property in question is not surveyed separately during town survey and therefore, request of petitioner cannot be considered. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in refusing to survey the land as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential direction to respondents to conduct survey and demarcate petitioner’s plot. Second respondent filed counter affidavit making following averments. The land claimed by petitioner is located in T.S.No.9 and 10. An extent of 4,736 Sq.mts in T.S.No.9 and 6,102 Sq.mts in T.S.No.10 is recorded in favour of M/s.B.Ramaiah Chowdary and B.S.Murthy. The petitioner has not produced authenticated copy of approved lay out showing location of her plot in T.S.No.9 and 10 corresponding to old survey No.129/48, so as to identify the land on the spot. Therefore, request of petitioner could not be considered, which was informed to her by memo dated 22.06.2002. It is also stated in counter that town survey in twin cities was conducted during the period 1964 to 1975, duly following procedure under Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (‘the Act’, for brevity). After completion of survey, notices, as envisaged under Section 9(2) of the Act were served on Pattadars and all interested persons. As no objections were received within stipulated time under Section 13 of the Act, it was published in District Gazette on 25.11.1970. The survey has become final and petitioner has not filed any civil suit, as required under Section 14 of the Act. The counter discloses that total extent of T.S.No.9 and 10 corresponding to Survey No.129/48 is 10,848 Sq.mts. This alone is recorded in favour of M/s.B.Ramaiah Chowdary and B.S.Murthy. Petitioner purchased 1167 Sq.yards from Smt.Vijayamani, who had in turn purchased from M/s.Ramaiah Chowdary. Therefore, insofar as town survey numbers are concerned, there appears to be no dispute. But unless and until layout plan is produced, it would not be possible for survey team to identify petitioner’s plot and fix boundaries. In that view of the matter, impugned memo cannot be faulted. If so advised, petitioner may make further application enclosing necessary particulars and layout maps etc., to enable respondents to carryout survey for the purpose of fixing boundaries of petitioner’s plot. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J October 08, 2009 Bvv