IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16471 of 2001 Between: Ramchander Singh & others. … Petitioners AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M.A. Bari Counsel for the respondents: GP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16471 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled to quash memo dated 12.07.2001, whereby respondent No.2 rejected the petitioners’ application for inclusion of their names in town survey land records. Petitioner No.2 and some of his family members ﬁled O.S.No.77 of 1963 on the ﬁle of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.46.25 guntas in Sy.Nos.5 to 7 and 9 of Razdharkhanpet. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court. CCCA.No.67 of 1966 ﬁled against the said judgment and decree was reversed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The said judgment was questioned in LPA.No.122 of 1970, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment and decree dated 23.02.1972 and decree in O.S.No.77 of 1963 was restored. The petitioners claim that the revenue records were corrected in pursuance of the said decree. When the land in Sy.No.9/1, which was part of the said decree, was acquired in the year 1978, the petitioners approached respondent No.2 to include their names in town survey records in respect of an extent of Ac.46.25 guntas comprised in Sy.Nos.5/1, 5/2, 6/1, 7, 9/1 and 9/2, the impugned memo has been issued. A perusal of the said memo shows that the petitioners have approached respondent No.2 nearly 26 years after the decree was passed in their favour, that town survey was conducted from the years 1967 to 1971 in between the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, that notiﬁcation under Section 6(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued, that notiﬁcation under Section 13 of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette No.13 dated 28.02.1977 after completing the survey and that any person aggrieved by the entries in the town survey records should have ﬁled a civil suit within three years from the date of Gazette notiﬁcation under Section 14 of the Act and that as the petitioners failed to ﬁle a civil suit within the said period, their request to include their names in Column No.10, which was recorded as ‘Khariz Khatha’ and as ‘Government land’ in Column No.20 of TSLR is rejected. No counter affidavit is filed. As rightly pointed out by Sri M.A. Bari, learned counsel for the petitioners, that after a long drawn litigation the petitioners/their predecessors-in-title succeeded in getting their title declared. Respondent No.2 has not rejected the claim of the petitioners that their title was declared by this Court. Therefore, I ﬁnd no justiﬁcation whatsoever in respondent No.2 in declining to correct the TSLR on a purely technical ground that the petitioners ought to have ﬁled a civil suit to get the entry in the TSLR set aside. The purpose of ﬁling such a civil suit is to get their title declared. The said purpose, having been already achieved by the petitioners by obtaining a decree, no further purpose would be served by ﬁling another civil suit. As the title of the petitioners/their predecessors was conclusively declared by this Court, they are entitled to mutation of their names in the TSLR. The impugned memo of respondent No.2 is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to correct the entries in the TSLR in favour of the petitioners after holding an enquiry as to the subsisting interest of the petitioners over the extent of Ac.46.25 guntas of land of Razdarkhanpet, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad District. He shall complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.20607 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.09.2008 ES