IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 26071 of 2008 Between: 1 Kuruva Kuppuswami S/o. K. Naganna, Hindu, Male R/o. D.No. 2-237, Peta, Kurnool. 2 Kuruva Thirupathaiah S/o. K. Naganna, Hindu, Male R/o. D.No. 2/62, Peta, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 The Deputy Inspector of Survey O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. 3 Mala Poludasu Nadipi Naganna S/o. Male Venkataiah @ Komukanna, Hindu R/o. D.No. 69-309, Joharapuram, Kurnool. 4 Munwar Basha S/o. Abdul Rasool R/o. D.No. Ganigalli Village, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No. 1 & 2 in issuing the notice dt. 19-11-2008 to the petitioners herein to measure the 0.63 cents of land in Sy.No. 781/A2/2A1B situated in Kallur Village, Kurnool District without prior permission of the court when the said land is subject matter of the O.S.No. 792 of 2003 pending before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool and not mining the orders of passed in IA NO. 975 of 2003 , I.A.No. 526 of 2008 and C.R.P. No. 1952 of 2005 as illegal, arbitrary capricious and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 not to enter the land to measure it without Civil Court directions as the land is the subject of the matter of the O.S.No. 792 of 2003 which is ceased by the Civil Court below for adjudication or to pass any other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.CH.SHANMUKHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26071 of 2008 ORDER: The two petitioners are aggrieved by notice dated 19.11.2008 issued by second respondent informing them that on an application made by fourth respondent for survey of land admeasuring Ac.0.63 in survey No.781/A2,2A1B situated at Kallur Village, Kurnool District, they (petitioners) are required to be present at the land for taking measurements. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they are owners of land admeasuring Acs.1.87 in survey No.67/2 and third respondent is vendor. Third respondent filed O.S.No.792 of 2003 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, for permanent injunction alleging that land admeasuring Ac.0.63 was in his possession and that petitioners herein are interfering with the same. He also sought fo r ad interim injunction, which was granted on 04.07.2003. The petitioners herein entered appearance and filed their rejoinder in the interlocutory application and the same is pending. In the meanwhile third respondent filed another application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he submitted a report. Subsequently on 08.08.2003 I.A.No.861 of 2003 filed for injunction was dismissed stating that third respondent (plaintiff in O.S.No.792 of 2003) failed to prove enjoyment of the land. The petitioners, therefore, contend that by necessary endurance they are in possession of the land and when the matter is sub judice before civil Court conducting survey is illegal. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area). He contends that it is only a notice of survey at the instance of fourth respondent who is not a party to the suit. If the petitioners are aggrieved they can always raise objections. This Court finds force in the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader. Further if the petitioners’ possession was subject matter of O.S.No.792 of 2003 and there was a finding in their favour, nothing prevents them to produce a copy of the same before second respondent and seek necessary redressal. It is also open to them to approach the same civil Court and obtain necessary orders. The writ petition misconceived. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 28th November, 2008 GHN To 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 The Deputy Inspector of Survey O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. 3 2CCs to GP for Revenue 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}