THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2034 of 2007 Dated:- 19th November, 2010 Between:- Kanneboina Mallaiah and others ..…Petitioners AND Chirrangoni Swamy and others …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2034 of 2007 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree dated 22.02.2007 passed in C.M.A.No.4 of 2006 by the III Additional District Judge, Warangal, (‘lower appellate Court’, for brevity) whereby and whereunder, the order and decree dated 14.12.2005 passed in I.A.No.2592 of 2005 in O.S.No.1316 of 2005 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, (‘trial Court’, for brevity), was set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners’ are the plaintiffs in the Original Suit. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners’ is that they are the owners of land admeasuring Acs.4.21 guntas in Survey No.456, 459 and 460 situated at Rampet Village, Hanmakonda Mandal, Warangal District (‘suit schedule lands’, for brevity). According to the petitioners’, these lands are forming one compact block. It is also their case that originally, their father purchased the suit schedule lands under different simple sale deeds on 20.05.1954 from the original owners and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also their case that they have been issued Pattadar Passbooks and that their names have been entered in the Pahanis for the relevant years. It is also their case that the respondents’, without having any right or title, have been interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit schedule lands. It is also their case that they approached the Mandal Surveyor who demarcated the suit schedule lands and conducted the panchanama by preparing Tonch map in File No.B3/1991/97 dated 23.03.1998 and fixed the boundary stones in the presence of the mediators. 3. The respondents’ are the defendants in the Original Suit. Their case is that they are the owners of land in Survey Nos.371 and 463 of Taralapalli village, Hanmakonda Mandal, Warangal District. It is also their case that major part of the land in Survey No.371 of Taralapalli Village overlapped with the land in Survey No.456, 459 and 460 of Rampet Village. It is also their case that they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land situated in Survey No.371, exclusively to the knowledge of one and all and particularly to the knowledge of the petitioners’. It is also their case that they were not issued any notices when the alleged survey was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor and that the Mandal Surveyor has not followed the mandatory procedure before conducting the survey. It is also their case that since they were not issued any notices about the survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor, the Tonch plan prepared by him cannot be taken into consideration. 4. The trial Court, having considered the rival contentions and Exs.P.1 to P.10 marked on behalf of the petitioners and Exs.R.1 to R.19 marked on behalf of the respondents and holding that the Pattadar Passbooks and the Pahanis show that the petitioners’ have been in possession of the suit schedule lands and that Ex.P.7 – certified copy of the Panchanama conducted by the Assistant Director, Survey and Measurements Office, shows that there is no overlapping of survey No.371 with the suit schedule lands and that the petitioners’ have established their prima facie case and that if injunction is not granted to the petitioners’, they will be put to irreparable loss, allowed the application and thereby, the interim injunction granted earlier was made absolute. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents’ preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.4 of 2006 before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court, holding that the survey was conducted without issuing notices to the respondents’ and that the petitioners’ have not furnished the extent of land in each survey number separately and that they have also not given the specific boundaries of Survey No.456, set aside the order of the trial Court. The petitioners’ impugn the same in this revision. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners’. No representation for the respondents’. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners’ is that the documents filed by the petitioners’, the Pattadar Passbooks and Pahanis clinchingly establish that the petitioners’ have prima facie case and that it is not in dispute that the petitioners are owners of the suit schedule lands. It is also his submission that the petitioners’ got the lands surveyed by the competent authority and that the survey was conducted in the presence of mediators and panchanama was prepared and the suit schedule lands were demarcated and it shows that there is no overlapping of survey numbers. It is also his submission that the lower appellate Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and committed error in allowing the appeal. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the impugned order is sustainable. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are owners of the suit schedule lands and their title is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the respondents’ are owners of land in Survey Nos.371 and 463. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule lands and the lands of the respondents are adjacent to one another. Having regard to the entire material available on record and the rival contentions of the parties, it is clear that though survey was conducted by the Assistant Director of Survey, Settlements and Land Records in respect of the suit schedule lands and Survey No.371 of Taralapalli Village, Hanmakonda Mandal, Warangal District, but admittedly, no notices were issued to the respondents’. Moreover, the petitioners’ have also not given the specific extent of land and boundaries of each survey number of the suit schedule lands, particularly, boundaries of Survey No.456, which, according to the respondents’, is not adjacent to the other two survey numbers. No useful purpose would be served unless a correct survey is conducted in the presence of both the parties by the officers of Survey, Settlement and Land Records. 10. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to pass order as follows:- 11. The impugned order of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to the petitioners’ herein to file an application before the trial Court for conducting fresh survey of the suit schedule lands and also the lands of the respondents’ in the presence of both the parties and to fix the boundaries and to demarcate the lands, following due process of law. On such application by the petitioners’, the trial Court may direct the Assistant Director, Survey, Settlements and Land Records to conduct survey by himself. Till such time, I hope and trust that both the parties will maintain peace and tranquillity. Therefore, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo till fresh orders are passed by the trial Court. 12. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 18th November, 2010 Bvv Note:- Issue C.C. by 24.11.2010 (B/o) Bvv