IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25005 of 2010 Between: C. Padmaja. ..... Petitioner AND The Tahsildar, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25005 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition represents the story of a hapless lady, who seems to be facing problem in getting her land demarcated and sub- divided. Her case is that an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.190 of Nagireddypalli Village, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa District, was given away to her mother by her grandfather towards Pasupu Kunkuma at the time of her mother’s marriage. That the total extent of the land in Sy.No.190 is Ac.5.20 cents and during the life time of the petitioner’s mother, she has executed and registered a gift deed in respect of Ac.1.00 in petitioner’s favour on 01.11.2006. The petitioner’s father is stated to be a retired central Government employee and after the death of the petitioner’s mother, she is looking after him, who is stated to be suffering from old age ailments. The petitioner approached the respondents with a request to survey and sub-divide her share of land out of Ac.5.20 cents in Sy.No.190. Vide his notice dated 29.05.2010, the Mandal Surveyor attached to respondent No.1’s office fixed 05.06.2010 as the date for survey and sub-division. However, without accomplishing the said task, respondent No.1 has issued endorsement dated 09.06.2010, wherein he has expressed his inability to demarcate and sub-divide the land on two grounds, namely; that there are no boundaries and the land is not under cultivation and that the co-owners of the land in the same survey number, namely, Sri Veerapreddy Seetharam Reddy and two others have raised their objections. At the hearing, Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on circular dated 01.06.1989 of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, wherein it is inter alia clarified when a doubt expressed by his subordinates as to how to conduct survey. It is relevant to extract the point and the clarification sought for and given. Point Clarification In one survey number different persons are in possession and occupation over the land as per metes and bunds, but there are not sub-divisions to the village accounts and Record of Rights Registrar and their respective shares are only being noted in the Record of Rights Registrar and sub-division numbers are to be made in the survey number as per occupation and enjoyment both in Record of Rights and Settlement Records. These lands relate to ancestral or joint property. Column 24 of the ROR in Form-I provides for number of sub-divisions to be created in such cases, sub- rule 4 of Rule 14 of Draft Record of Rights rules, 1989 provides as below:- (4) The new sub-division, as shown in the confirmed Record of Rights shall be measured and mapped in the concerned records as per the procedure laid down and the fee shall be recoverable from the concerned ryots as arrears of land revenue. The extent noted in respect of each part of survey number or each sub-division on the Record of Rights Register, shall be subject to correction, wherever necessary after the completion of measurement of the new sub- divisions. For the new sub-divisions to b e created, the recording authority may adopt alphabets and after the survey department completes the sub-division work, they will replace the alphabets by numbers. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue pointed out that from the endorsement of respondent No.1, it is evident that there are no metes and bounds and therefore it is not possible to conduct survey. In the light of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken adjournment to enable his client to file an additional affidavit. Accordingly, today an additional affidavit has been filed along with WPMP.No.39918 of 2010. In her affidavit, the petitioner has clearly stated that as per title deed dated 01.11.2006, the following boundaries are mentioned: “East: Land belonging to Smt. Gangamma (in the same survey number) West: Chinna Kaluva (Irrigation canal) situated in the land belonging to Panchayat. North: Land belonging to Smt. Veerapureddy Kanthamma (late) (in the same survey number but presently the land is in occupation of her son Sri Veerapureddy Seetharami Reddy and brothers). South: Land belonging to Sri Mukara Subbaiah (this land is not in part of Sy.No.190).” She has further stated that on Southern side between Sri Mukkara Subbaiah’s land and her land there is a stone wall (Thettu) in existence, that towards Western side, her land is bounded by “Chinna Kaluva” and that therefore it is very easy to survey, demarcate and sub-divide her land as per her title deed. She has further pleaded that on the Northern and Eastern sides of her land, the boundary stones erected long back are still in existence. It is trite that demarcation and sub-division of the lands are made to enable the owner of the land to enjoy the same conveniently without anyone’s interference, but at the same time, the mere act of demarcation of the land and sub-division would not confer any title on a person, who does not otherwise have such title. Therefore, having regard to the specific averments made by the petitioner that her land can be easily identified for the purpose of demarcation and sub- division, I deem it appropriate in the interests of justice to direct the respondents to conduct survey, demarcate and sub-divide the land. If the neighbouring owners of the land have any objection, they are entitled to avail their remedies in appropriate Court of law. The respondents shall complete this exercise after giving notice to the petitioner and other interested parties, if any, in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1905 and the circulars governing the field, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.31965 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.12.2010 ES Note:- Issue CC in (5) days. ES