HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.24199 of 2002 Dated: 17-02-2011 Between: Bhoomula Dharmaraju …Petitioner AND Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala and others. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.24199 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent-Mandal Surveyor, Addateegala in surveying the land measuring Ac.20.00 in Sy.No.78/1, 86/2 and 98/3 of Addateegala Village as per his report, dated 20.8.2002 as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential direction to the respondents to effect sub-division only after the partition of the properties among the legal heirs of late Pentaiah. It is not in dispute that late Pentaiah, the father of writ petitioner and fourth respondent was the registered holder of the land to an extent of Ac.20.00 in Sy.Nos.78/1, 86/2 and 98/3 of Addateegela Village. According to the petitioner, fourth respondent, one Nookaraju, brother’s son of the petitioner and the petitioner are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the said property and that the petitioner and Nookaraju requested the fourth respondent for partition of the property into 3 equal shares and to take 1/3rd share each. The fourth respondent is not interested for partitioning the property according to the good and bad qualities and he sent an application to the respondents 2 and 3 for sub-dividing the land. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent issued a notice, dated 17.6.2002 directing the petitioner and Nookaraju to be present on 23.6.2002 for effecting the sub-division of the land. On that, the petitioner submitted his objection to the Commissioner of Survey & Land Records stating that the land cannot be surveyed and sub-divided without partition among the sharers and he also sent a representation to the Joint Collector on 8.7.2002. In spite of the same, the survey was effected and the land was surveyed by the second respondent. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the action of the second respondent in sub-division of the land without actual partition is arbitrary and illegal and the impugned proceedings have to be quashed. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, it is stated that the petitioner while working as Village Administrative Officer, Addateegala in the year 1995, prepared pattadar pass books for petition schedule property in the name of himself, fourth respondent and his brother’s son-Nookaraju of various extents and issued pattadar passbooks under pass book Nos.176269, 176270 and 176271 respectively. Fourth respondent filed a representation on 15.6.2001 for survey and to show his lands as per the extent mentioned in his pattadar pass book, on which basis, the Mandal Surveyor, Addateegala issued a notice to the petitioner, but the petitioner refused to take the notice. However, the petitioner acknowledged the subsequent notice, dated 17.6.2002. Though the petitioner acknowledged the notice, did not turn up for survey works on 23.6.2002, on which date, the Mandal Surveyor shown the boundaries of land belongs to fourth respondent as per the pattadar pass books issued in his favour and the proceedings were prepared about showing the boundaries in the impugned proceedings. But it does not disclose division of properties among the brothers except showing the boundaries as mentioned in the pattadar pass books. Since there are disputed questions of fact about the division of the properties among the brothers in the light of the pattadar pass books issued to them, the dispute should be resolved by the competent civil Court, but mere specifying the boundaries or showing the boundaries of the land in the light of the pattadar pass books will not amount to sub-division of the property among the brothers as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the same, the proceedings showing the boundaries in the light of the pattadar passbooks cannot be implemented. Parties are at liberty to avail the remedies before the competent civil Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 17, 2011 Tsr.