IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10321 of 2002 Between: D. Gangi Reddy & others. … Petitioners AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District, & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K. Srinivasa Rao for Sri R. Ramchandra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10321 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of land in Sy.No.246/1 of Punganur Village, Chittoor District, as arbitrary and illegal. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only grievance of the petitioners is that though they applied to respondent No.1 for survey of the land, without conducting survey, respondent No.1 and his subordinates have been interfering with the possession of their property on the ground that the same is covered by Municipal Upper Primary School and that the petitioners shall not raise any construction over it. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondent No.1, he admitted that the petitioners applied for survey by paying Rs.100/- by way of challan and that since the said land is covered by Municipal Upper Primary School, the request of the petitioners for survey and demarcation of the land was not considered. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, every person has right to apply for survey and demarcation of the boundaries in dispute. Under Section 10, when such an application is made, the Survey Oﬃcer is bound to hold an enquiry, take a decision and record in writing the reasons for his decision. Therefore, the stand of respondent No.1 that since the land is covered by the Municipal Upper Primary School the petitioners’ application was not considered cannot be appreciated. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to conduct survey, demarcate the boundaries and communicate the order in writing to the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12691 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.10.2008 ES