IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15974 of 2005 Between: 1 Pinnamaraju Srinivasa Raju S/o.Sundararama Raju 2 Smt.Bhupathiraju Jyothilakshmi W/o.Rangaraju, Jakkaram, Kalla Mandal W.G.District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Narsapuram, West Godavari District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Akividu Mandal, Akvidu W.G.District. 4 Thota Satyanarayana S/o.Koteswararao Kollaparru, Akivudu Mandal, W.G.District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.N.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioners mounted challenge to a very peculiar order passed by respondent No.2, who declared the right of respondent No.4 to the extent of Ac.0.27 cents in R.S.No.488/1A, Ac.0.06 cents in R.S.No.488/1B, Ac.0.13 cents in R.S.No.488/1 etc., of Akividu Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. Respondent No.4 approached respondent No.2 with a petition on 04-01-2005 with the complaint that the petitioners are in occupation of a part of the land belonging to him in R.S.No.488/1 of Akividu Village and Mandal, West Godavari District and he requested for survey of the land by the Mandal Surveyor and fixing up of the boundaries. Respondent No.2 entertained the said application and forwarded the same to the Mandal Surveyor for undertaking survey. The said Officer submitted a survey report on 02-02-2005 wherein he, inter alia, stated that 5 persons, including the petitioners herein, are in possession of the said land and respondent No.4 has no right over the same nor he filed any documentary evidence in support of his right except a copy of diglot. He opined that without documentary evidence, it was not possible to conduct survey and fix up boundaries. From the impugned order it is evident that respondent No.2 issued notices to the occupants of the property including the petitioners and held enquiry on 07-05-2005. Respondent No.2 purportedly relying on report dated 16- 06-2005 of Divisional Deputy Inspector of Survey, Narsapuram, found that five persons, namely; Nimmala Venkata Subbarao, Karanam Satyanarayana, petitioners 1 and 2 herein and Kesireddi Dharmaraju are in possession of the extents either in excess of their documents of title or without the support of any document of title. He further found that as per the registered partition deed of respondent No.4, he has got Ac.0.32 cents to his share, but he was physically found not in possession of any part of the said extent. On this premise, he decided that respondent No.4 shall be put in possession of Ac.0.27 cents in R.S.No.488/1A and 488/1B, which was found to be in occupation of the above mentioned persons after recovering possession from them. At the hearing, when the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) was questioned as to the provision of law under which respondent No.2 has been conferred with the power to declare the right of a person on the basis of a purported partition deed, and direct recovery of possession from the persons who are found to be in possession of the property claimed by respondent No.4, she failed to point out any such legal provision. Sri.M.Janardhana Rao, learned counsel representing Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for respondent No.4, fairly conceded that the power of respondent No.2 is limited to deciding the issue relating to the fixation of boundaries and he has no power to decide the respective rights of the parties over the properties and delivery of possession on the strength of any finding rendered by him in favour of any party. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that respondent No.2 has donned the role of a civil Court by entertaining a petition from respondent No.4 and he virtually decided a civil dispute between the parties and directed delivery of possession which is far beyond the scope of his powers, if any vested under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. If respondent No.4 has any grievance regarding the boundary dispute, he shall be free to approach the competent forum for redressal of his grievance. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 20th June, 2008 vrn