IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10427 of 2005 Between: 1 K.Y.Narayana Reddy, S/o.K.Pitchi Reddy, R/o.2-2-355/1/13, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 2 Md.Hafiz Saleem, S/o.Ghulam Ali, R/o. 5-5-89, Darussalam, Hyderabad. 3 M.A.Rasheed, S/o.M.A.Khader, R/o.23-2-506, Mogalpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records (T.R), Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent in considering the representation dt.5-3- 2005 made by the petitioners for demarcation and fixation of boundaries of land in Sy.NO.50, Kattedhan (V), Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to dispose of the said representation by taking appropriate action thereon. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE This Court at the admission stage made the following: THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.10427 OF 2005 ORDER : The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of different extents o f the land situated in Sy.No.50 of Kattedhan Village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, having purchased the same under Registered Sale Deeds. It is stated that on an earlier occasion they approached the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Rangareddy District for demarcation and fixation of boundaries o f the land in Sy.No.50. Though the exercise was undertaken, the same was improperly done and was found to be defective. In the circumstances, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the respondent – Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records (T.R.), Hyderabad under the provisions of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’). The respondent found that the sketch prepared by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records was incorrect and accordingly a new sketch was prepared by the Deputy Inspector of Survey, attached to the office of the respondent and the same was communicated to the petitioners vide proceedings dated 11-6-1999. However, further steps have not been taken and the land has not been demarcated and the boundaries have not been fixed so far. Though the petitioners made a representation dated 5-3-2005, the respondent failed to respond. Hence, this writ petition seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent. Having regard to the proceedings of the respondent - Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, dated 11-6-1999 which shows that the Deputy Inspector of Survey has conducted a detailed survey and prepared the sketch which was verified and found to be correct by the respondent, the learned Government Pleader states that the representation of the petitioner dated 5-3-2005 will be considered and necessary steps will be taken in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 5-3-2005 for demarcation and fixation of boundaries of the land in Sy.No.50, Kattedhan Village and to take the necessary steps in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. __________________ 29th April, 2005. ghn To 1 The Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records (T.R), Hyderabad. 2 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (O.U.T.) 3 Two CD copies.