THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.14890 and 21871 of 2010 Date: 09.12.2010 WRIT PETITION No.14890 of 2010: Between: S. Seetharamaiah ..... Petitioner AND The Director, Land Survey & Records, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.5: -- WRIT PETITION No.21871 of 2010: Between: Karnati Hanumayamma ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Guntur and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.5: -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions pertain to a common issue, namely, whether the petitioner in W.P.No.21871 of 2010 is entitled for conduct of survey in respect of Acs.1.50 cents of land in survey No.296 of Chinkodamagundal Village, Karempudi Mandal, Guntur District. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.21871 of 2010. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the aforesaid land having succeeded from her father. Respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.43 of 1995 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurzala, against the petitioner’s father for declaration of title and permanent injunction, and the father of the petitioner filed O.S.No.59 of 1995 against respondent No.5 for permanent injunction. Both the suits were clubbed together and by a common judgment dated 02.05.1998, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit filed by respondent No.5 and decreed the suit filed by the father of the petitioner. The said judgments and decrees were questioned by respondent No.5 in A.S.Nos.81 and 82 of 1998 in the Court of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Guntur. Both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 01.04.2003. Respondent No.5 thereupon filed S.A.No.1257 of 2005 and S.A.(SR)No.8909 of 2005 before this Court and these two appeals are stated to be still pending in this Court. The petitioner has filed an application on 27.04.2010 before respondent Nos.3 and 4 for conducting survey and fixing sub-division of survey No.296. When respondent No.3 has issued notices fixing 19.05.2010 for conducting survey, respondent No.5 addressed letter dated 18.05.2010 through his counsel that as the Second Appeals are pending in this Court, no steps shall be taken for measurement of the land. On receipt of the said letter, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not proceeded with the survey. Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.21871 of 2010 has filed W.P.No.14890 of 2010 for declaration that the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in seeking to survey the land when the Second Appeals are pending is not proper and legal. The facts noted above would show that there is a serious dispute regarding the title of the property. Though the father of the petitioner succeeded in getting his title declared, the judgment and decree has not attained finality. Mere survey of the land and demarcation of the boundaries would not confer any right or title on any party. However, on the facts of these cases, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 are not attracted and in strict legal sense the petitioner does not have an enforceable right to compel the revenue authorities to survey the land and demarcate the boundaries unless the provisions of Sections 5 to 13 of the said Act are satisfied. In ordinary course, the revenue authorities are obliging the parties to survey the land. But as noted above, in the absence of a statutory right vested in a party, he cannot compel the revenue officials to survey when they feel constraints having regard to the objections raised by the adversary party. If the petitioner feels the necessity of getting the survey conducted, the appropriate course open to her is to approach the Court which has passed the decree in favour of her father with an appropriate application for giving directions to the revenue authorities to survey the land and demarcate the boundaries. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of these writ petitions, W.P.M.P.No.18752 of 2010 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.14890 of 2010 and W.P.M.P.No.27829 of 2010 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.21871 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th December, 2010 GHN