IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6274 of 2005 Between: Aakula Saroja and another. … Petitioners And The Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Khairtabad, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.Pulla Reddy. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1 to R.3. Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to get plot Nos.8 and 15 demarcated in Survey No.368 of Ibrahimptanam Khalsa village as directed by this Court in order dated 2-5-2003 passed in Writ Petition No.8406 of 2003. The petitioners also prayed for a direction to the respondents not to implement proceedings dated 3-1-2005 issued by respondent No.1 till such demarcation is made. The petitioners were assigned plot No.8 admeasuring 121 Sq.yards in Survey No.368 of Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa village on 27-5-1983 under house site patta certiﬁcate bearing No.D2/1286/83 by the then Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam. Respondent No.4 claimed interest over plot No.15 comprised in the same survey number. There were suits and counter- suits ﬁled by both the parties. After remand of O.S.No.206 of 1987 by this Court by judgment dated 18-1-2000 in Second Appeal No.674 of 1975, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, held that the documents ﬁled by respondent No.4 were not enough to establish the identity and location of plot No.15 claimed by him and on that premise he declined to grant a decree for perpetual injunction against the petitioners herein. Subsequently, respondent No.4 approached the Revenue authorities for demarcation of plot Nos.8 and 15 and ﬁled Writ Petition No.8406 of 2003 for appropriate direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of his representation dated 24-2-2003 for such demarcation. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 2-5-2003 with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the said representation in accordance with law. Following the said order, respondent No.1 directed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Ibrahimpatnam, to decide on the request of respondent No.4. Vide his letter dated 21-8- 2004, respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 that he asked the Mandal Surveyor to demarcate plot Nos.8 and 15; that the Surveyor has identiﬁed the plots and demarcated the same; that as per the survey report respondent No.4 is in possession of plot No.15 to the extent of 0.01 gunta situated in Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa village; and that he has constructed a house thereon. He also enclosed a sketch along with his letter. Purporting to act on the said letter, respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceedings addressed to respondent No.2 wherein he concluded that respondent No.4 is in possession of plot No.15 in Survey No.368 of Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa village by establishing a hotel and eking out his livelihood and that the boundaries may be mentioned in the original certificate. Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, mounted serious attack on letter dated 21-8-2004 addressed by respondent No.2 and the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.1. He pointed out that while respondent No.2 in his letter clearly stated that the Mandal Surveyor demarcated plot Nos.8 and 15, the sketch enclosed to the said letter did not contain plot No.8 at all. He, therefore, submitted that the action of respondent No.2 in not getting plot No.8 demarcated is wholly illegal and that respondent No.1 ought not to have issued the impugned proceedings based on such a report given by respondent No.2. Sri V.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4, however, sought to support the proceedings of respondents 2 and 1. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, though respondent No.2 in his letter speciﬁed that the Mandal Surveyor identiﬁed both the plots, viz., plot Nos.8 and 15, the sketch enclosed to the said letter does not contain plot No.8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 does not dispute this fact. As could be seen from the order in Writ Petition No.8406 of 2003 the prayer of respondent No.4 in the said Writ Petition was to direct respondent No.1 to dispose of his representation for demarcation of plot Nos.8 and 15. In the background of the serious dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.4 and in the light of the request made by respondent No.4 to demarcate both the plots, I see no justiﬁcation for respondent No.2 in not getting plot No.8 demarcated. Respondent No.1, without noticing this serious defect, issued the impugned proceedings directing respondent No.2 to mark the boundaries in the original certiﬁcate to be issued in favour of respondent No.4. In view of the failure of respondent No.2 to get plot No.8 demarcated, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.1 cannot be enforced. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Proceedings dated 3-1-2005 issued by respondent No.1 is quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to get plot Nos.8 and 15 comprised in Survey No.368 of Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa village demarcated through respondent No.3 in the presence of the petitioners and respondent No.4. ----------------------- ----------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02-09-2008 MNR