IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11199 of 2008 Between: HBL Power System Ltd., Regd.Office 8-2-604, Road No.10,Banjara hills, Hyderabad, rep by S.Ravi Sobhan,S/o. S.Hanumanth Rao,age 49 years, Occ: General Manager, R/o. Plot No.177, Road No.72, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an appropriate writ or orders or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not conducting re-survey by giving a fresh dated and conducting a survey on 16-5-2008, is quite illegal and arbitrary and also violative of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 11199 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. The respondent issued a notice dated 14-5-2008 proposing to conduct survey on 16-5-2008 over the land in Survey No. 615 of Shamshabad village at the instance of neighbour of the petitioner. 2. On 14-5-2008 itself a letter was submitted on behalf of the petitioner company stating that the Managing Director is not available and it is not possible for them to participate in Survey of Survey No.615. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of said objection the Survey was conducted and on the basis of same, neighbour of the petitioner is trying to encroach on the land belonging to the petitioner. The request made to the respondent for conducing re-survey, is said to have been not acceded to. The petitioner seeks fresh direction in this regard. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondent. 5. Respondent conducted survey as part of his obligation under the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act. Even assuming that the survey conducted by the respondent is defective in any manner and there exist procedural or factual errors in it, the petitioner has a remedy by way of appeal under Section 11 of the Act. The Appellate Authority will be in a better position to appreciate the matter and on the verification of relevant records. If the petitioner is facing any problem from the neighbour, it can work out its remedy, and in fact, it is stated that a suit has already been filed. 6. The writ petition is disposed of keeping open to the petitioner to seek remedy, as available under law. The Respondent shall communicate the proceedings of Survey to the petitioner to enable it to prefer an appeal. The period of limitation shall commence from the date of communication of the proceedings. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice L.Narasimha Reddy 28th May, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 11199 OF 2008 28th May, 2008.