THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7381 of 2010 01.4.2010 Between: Ponugupati Anasuryamma alias Anasuyamma, W/0.Late Ponugupati Seshaiah … Petitioner AND The Tahsildar, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7381 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of South Addanki in Prakasam District. Statedly her husband purchased the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 in survey No.1490/2 of the said Village under registered sale deed dated 26.4.1982. It appears, he executed a Will on 21.2.1984 in favour of petitioner. After his death, on 28.2.1984, petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner has three sons – Goverdhana, Tirupathaiah and Venkateswarlu. First son died on 07.10.2002 and third son died on 22.3.2002. The other son, Tirupathaiah, went as illotam son-in-law. Therefore petitioner alone claims to be entitled to husband’s property. It appears, when there was interference by sons, she filed O.S.No.214 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, her son Venkateswarlu died and third respondent and her children filed application to come on record as legal representatives. Petitioner raised objection. She denied that third respondent is not wife of Venkateswarlu but the application was allowed. Subsequently petitioner withdrew the suit on 15.2.2010. Third respondent made application to first respondent to survey the land in S.No.1490/2. First respondent issued notice dated 15.3.2010 requiring the petitioner to be present at the land on 23.3.2010 at 8.00 am. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. The counsel for petitioner contends that third respondent has no manner of right in respect of land admeasuring Acs.3.00 in S.No.1490/2 and therefore at her instance respondents 1 and 2 cannot take up survey. According to the counsel any recourse to Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (the Act), can be had only when the person seeking survey has right in the land. The writ petition is wholly misconceived. When the third respondent made application to first respondent, survey was undertaken. Third respondent, allegedly wife of petitioner’s son Venkateswarlu, is claiming a right. Admittedly she was impleaded in O.S.No.214 of 1997 as legal representative of late Venkateswarlu. Therefore, it is not a case of inherent lack of title. Even if there is a dispute regarding the right between the petitioner and third respondent mere survey does not affect the right of petitioner. Either of rival title claimants have such remedy before Civil Court. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the notice of survey is misconceived. The petitioner can raise all objections before the Survey Officer and even file an appeal under Section 11 of the Act against the survey report. The other aspects urged by the petitioner are in the realm of fact and this Court is not inclined to go into these questions. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) April 01, 2010 YS