IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22552 of 2004 Between: Smt. A. Usha Rani & others … Petitioners AND The Mandal Revenue Officer-cum- Mandal Surveyor, Patancheru & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22552 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.E/5927/2003 dated 28.03.2004 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for respondent No.1. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 claim to be the owners of Ac.6.04 guntas in Sy.Nos.446 and 447 out of the total extent of Ac.31.20 guntas of Chitkul Village, patancheru Mandal, Medak District. It is their case that respondent No.2 purchased an extent of Ac.20.00 from different owners in the said survey numbers. The petitioners averred that they were granted pattadar passbooks in their favour to the said extent of land and respondent No.2 allegedly encroached into their land in the year 2003 and that when they got the land measured, they found that an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas was under the occupation of respondent No.2 and was not under their occupation. The petitioners further pleaded that on 15.12.2003 they made an application to respondent No.1 to survey their land admeasuring Ac.6.04 guntas in the said two survey numbers, that respondent No.1 issued notices to the petitioners and respondent No.2 to be present at the site on 02.02.2004 at 10.30 a.m. at Chitkul Village for the purpose of survey, demarcation and fixation of boundaries in respect of the land in survey Nos.446 and 447 and that though the petitioners were present on the said date, respondent No.2 was not present in spite of receiving notice. It is further averred that respondent No.1, instead of conducting survey, passed the impugned order, wherein he informed that since respondent No.2, who is the adjacent owner, neither appeared for demarcation nor gave its consent, the survey and demarcation of the land, as requested by the petitioners, cannot be done without appropriate orders passed by the civil Court. Respondent No.1 did not file counter affidavit. On behalf of respondent No.2, Vengalla Vijayalaxmi, W/o. Ramakrishna Prasad filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alai averred that respondent No.2 purchased an extent of Ac.18.10 guntas in Sy.Nos.446 and 447 of Chitukula Village, Patancheru Mandal, under different registered sale deeds in the year 2002-2003 from Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao, father-in-law of petitioner No.1, that on the basis of the application made by respondent No.2, the Grampanchayat sanctioned and approved the layout plan on 16.18.2002 for a total plotted area of 52,000 square yards after leaving 40% towards roads and open space, that out of the total plotting area, respondent No.2 sold 35,889 square yards to various purchasers, out of 250 plots respondent No.2 sold 148 plots and that after getting the layout approved, respondent No.2 laid metal roads and planted trees through out the roads dividing plots. Respondent No.2 pointed out that the petitioners, without disclosing the said facts, filed the writ petition with false allegations. It is further averred that the approved plan of the petitioners shows that the western boundary of their land is the land of Sri A. Madhusudhan Rao from whom respondent No.2 purchased, that plot Nos.1, 4, 5, 10 etc., are the existing plots between the land of the petitioners and the land of vendors of respondent No.2. It is also pleaded that respondent No.2 has no knowledge about the representation of the petitioners given to respondent No.1 and has not received notice dated 02.02.2004 allegedly sent by respondent No.1. It is reported that the petitioners and respondent No.2 sold plots to various persons and they are not impleaded as parties to the writ petition and that all the purchasers have title and interest over the said land and that since they have created third party rights, interests over the land in Sy.Nos.446 and 447 by dividing the same into plots, if any fresh survey is ordered, the settled things will get unsettled. Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the ground for rejection of the petitioners’ application for survey and fixation of boundaries given by respondent No.1 in the impugned order cannot be sustained. He contended that under Section 10(1) of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’), it is incumbent upon respondent No.1 to determine the boundary and record it in accordance with his decision and such a decision is required to be communicated and notice of such decision is required to be given in the prescribed manner to the parties in dispute and other registered holders of the lands, the boundaries of which may be affected by the decision. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 10 (1) of the Act postulates that when a boundary is disputed, the Survey Officer, after making such enquiry as considered, shall determine the boundary and record it in accordance with his decision and the Survey Officer shall record in writing the reasons for its decision. Under Section 10 (2) notice of every decision of the Survey Officer under Section 10 (1) shall be given in the prescribed manner to the parties to the dispute and other registered holders of the lands, the boundaries of which may be affected by the decision. If any person is aggrieved by the decision under Section 10, he is entitled to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 11. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioners’ request for conducting survey and fixing boundaries was rejected only on the ground that respondent No.2 was neither present on the date on which the proposed survey was fixed nor gave its consent for conducting survey and fixing boundaries. A careful reading of these provisions makes it clear that consent of the neighbouring owners of the property is not a condition precedent for the Survey Officer to conduct survey and fix boundaries. As noted above, under Section (2), notice of the decision taken pertains to the survey and fixing of boundaries shall be served to all the parties to the dispute and other registered holders of the lands, the boundaries of which may be affected by the decision. In my considered view, respondent No.1 failed to understand the true purport of the provisions of Section 10 and refused to conduct survey and fix boundaries. Even assuming that the allegation of respondent No.2 contained in its counter- affidavit that both the petitioners and respondent No.2 sold their properties to third parties by converting the same into plots, the fact does not deprive the right of the petitioners to seek survey and fixation of boundaries. If eventually it is found that a part of the land belonging to the petitioners is illegally sold by respondent No.2, they are certainly entitled to recover its cost. If the plots are already registered by respondent No.2, they are also entitled to notice of the decision under Section 10 (2). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.1 (presently Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor, Patancheru) is directed to take appropriate steps for conducting survey and fixing boundaries in terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, after giving notice to respondent No.2 and other registered owners of the lands, the boundaries of which may be affected by the decision. Respondent No.1 shall complete this exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.06.2008 ES