IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 13616 of 2004 Between: M. Balakrishna, S/o M. Venkata Ramudu, Prashanthi Gramam, Putaparthi P.O. & Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttaparthi Mandal, Puttaparthi, Ananthapur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapur 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 issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in proceeding with the survey of the petitioner's land an extent of Ac. 3-05 cents in Sy.No. 167-4, situated at Kappalabanda Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Anantapur District is contrary to the provisions of Sec. 5 and 6 of A.P. Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923 as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.A.CHAYA DEVI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following at the Admission stage: ORDER: The petitioner states that his father is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3.05 out of Acs.20.20 in Survey No.167-4 situated at Kapalabanda Revenue village in Puttaparthi Mandal. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when he has raised groundnut and redgram crop, which is one month old, the respondents at the behest of Lekkala Pothanna are taking steps to survey the lands in such a manner, that survey operations would damage the crop. Therefore, he made a representation to the respondents on 26.07.2004 requesting them to postpone the survey till the crop in the land is harvested, in vain. The petitioner, therefore, seeks redressal from this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the action of the respondents in surveying the land at the behest of third party is in violation of Section 6 and Rules 26 of A.P.Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short, the Act). In the affidavit, nowhere the petitioner made an averment that before taking up survey, notice was not issued to the petitioner. Be that as it is, the petitioner has already made a representation on 26.07.2004. Even before the same could be considered, the petitioner approached this Court. The petitioner may approach the first respondent for appropriate redressal in the matter. When the respondents have initiated the survey as per the provisions of the Act, there cannot be any objection for the same. The writ petition, with the above observations, is dismissed. No costs. ___________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 04.08.2004. pln // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttaparthi Mandal, Puttaparthi, Anantapur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapur District. 3. 2 CCs to the G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 4. 2 CD copies.