THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.23277 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of wet-land to an extent of Acs.2.30 cents situated in Survey No.30 of Maddimutannagudem, Chintalapudi Mandal, out of which, Acs.1.80 cents was purchased by him under a registered sale deed, dated 29.05.1989 and Ac.0.50 cents was inherited by him. He states that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since several years without any interruption. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that since he is facing troubles with the boundary land owners while carrying agricultural operations, he claims to have made an application on 13.07.2009 to the fourth respondent, namely, the Tahsildar, Chintalpudi Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, to survey the subject land and fix up boundaries by paying requisite fee, but in vain. Therefore, he claims to have made a representation on 31.08.2009, to the second respondent- District Collector, who in turn directed the third respondent to take action in the matter. But, so far no steps have been taken for conducting survey. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions in this regard. When the matter came up for the first time on 29.10.2009, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents to get instructions in the matter. Thereafter, on 31.05.2010, in spite of granting sufficient time, as the respondents have not filed counter, this Court directed the third respondent to appear before this Court today along with relevant record. Accordingly, today, when the matter is taken up, the third respondent is present in-person and filed counter in the matter admitting that the petitioner made representations seeking to conduct survey in respect of land to an extent of Acs.2.30 cents situated in Survey No.30 of Maddimutannagudem, Chintalapudi Mandal, pursuant to which, the Mandal Surveyor, Chintalapudi, submitted his report on 31.10.2009 stating that as per Field Measurement Book, the total extent of land in Survey No.30 is Acs.10.74 cents, which belongs to late Kandukuri Ramayya’s family and as there are certain family disputes among the legal heirs, civil suit in O.S.No.163 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi was filed and the same was dismissed. Questioning the same, A.S.No.77 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the leaned I Additional District Judge, Eluru was also filed and is pending. It is also stated that the petitioner is having only Acs.1.80 cents in R.S.No.30 of Maddimutannagudem and on 17.06.2010 in the presence of Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, West Godavari District, Eluru; Tahsildar, Chintalapudi Village, Revenue Officer, Utasamudram, the petitioner and the neighbour ryots, the Mandal Surveyor measured the said land and fixed the boundaries by laying stones and handed over possession to the petitioner, who is satisfied. Thus, it is stated that grievance of the petitioner does not subsist and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. But, however, at the hearing, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has made the application seeking survey of the entire extent of Acs.2.30 cents, but not Acs.1.80 cents and that the petitioner has inherited Ac.0.50 cents of land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. Though the petitioner contends that the respondents have not surveyed the entire extent of the land as sought by him, the fact remains that a civil suit is pending with regard to the land situated in Survey No.30 belonging to Kandukuri Ramayya’s family among the heirs and therefore, no direction can be given by this Court in this regard. Insofar as the land to an extent of Acs.1.80 cents is concerned, it is categorically stated that the Mandal Surveyor measured the said land and fixed the boundaries by laying stones and handed over possession to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:21.06.2010 VGB