THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15807 OF 2004 DISPOSED OF ON 23-11-2005. BETWEEN: Y.F.S.CHENOY AND ANOTHER .. PETITIONERS AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, HYD. AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15807 OF 2004 O R D E R : 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 17.7.2004 passed by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad i.e. 1st respondent in file bearing No.A4/11/2004. 2. This case has a chequered career. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the land bearing No.GLR 485 (old R.S.NO.47/1), Bushireddiguda, Picket hamlet of Bholakpur village, Hyderabad. They filed W.P.No.11207 of 2002 when the 1st respondent failed to furnish copies of tippons for fixing the boundaries in respect of land in question i.e. GLR No.485. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 23.1.2003. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “ The grievance of the petitioner is against the action of the first respondent in not supplying the tippons for fixation of boundries in respect of Survey No.47/1 corresponding to G.L.R.No.485 of Bushireddinguda hamlet of Bholakpur village as per the extract of G.L.R. supplied by the 3rd respondent as illegal. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is stated at Para 3 that the tippons for Sy.No.47 of Bholakpur village of Secunderabad Mandal has already been supplied to the M.R.O., Secunderabad in office letter No.A5/880/2002 dated 31.8.2002 to take up demarcation as per the request of the petitioner. Having regard to the said statement, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to take up the demarcation process and complete the same as expeditiously as possible.” A joint survey was conducted on 20.8.2003. Questioning the joint survey, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The petitioners apprehending interference of the respondents pending appeal approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20695 of 2003. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 30.1.2004. The relevant portion of the order in the writ petition reads as follows: “ Normally, this Court would require the parties to work out their remedies in appropriate Courts where there is a dispute as to title or identity of the properties. In this case, a joint survey was undertaken with the participation of revenue and defence officials as well as the petitioner. A sketch was prepared. As long as the same continues to be in force, the concerned parties are under obligation to abide by it. Any party aggrieved by such survey or the outcome of it has to prefer an appeal or to file a suit as provided for under The Survey and Boundaries Act. It is represented by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that an appeal had been preferred before the Deputy Director of Survey and land Records against the survey report and the sketch, dated 20-9-2003, prepared on the basis of the survey conducted on 20.8.2003. In that view of the matter, the respondents cannot be permitted to take any steps, which run contrary to the said survey report and sketch, pending disposal of the appeal. Hence, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents not to take any steps contrary to the survey report and sketch, dated 20.8.2003, till the disposal of the appeal said to have been preferred by the third respondent. No costs.” The 1st respondent conducted re-survey in the presence of both the parties and an order came to be passed on 17.7.2004. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. 3. Counters have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5. Reply affidavits have been filed by the petitioners. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for Respondents 1 and 2, Learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Central Government appearing for respondent No. 3, learned Standing Counsel for Cantonment Board appearing for 4th respondent and learned Standing Counsel for Housing Corporation appearing for respondent No.5. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short ‘Act’) is not applicable to the lands situated in Cantonment area and thus the appeal filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad invoking the provisions of the Act assailing the joint survey is not maintainable. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the land in question is classified as B-2 land and thus management vests with the State Government. He further submits that the Military Estate Officer is empowered to inspect the lands under the management of Cantonment Board and he is not empowered to manage class B-2 lands. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for Cantonment Board appearing for 4th respondent submits that the Estate Officer is the controlling authority for all the lands situated within the cantonment area irrespective of the class of land for the purpose of survey. He relied on Rule 9 of The Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, which reads as under: “ 9. Management of land: (1) The management of Class “A” (1) land, except for such areas or classes of areas as may from time to time be declared by the Central Government to be under the immediate management of the Military authorities themselves, shall be entrusted to the Military Estates Officer. 2. The management of Class “A” (2) land shall vest in the Military Estates Officer. 3. The management of Class “B” (1) land shall vest in the Department or Administration in occupation of the land. 4. The management of class “B” (2) land shall vest in the State Government in occupation or having control over the land. 5. The management of all Class “B” (3) land and class “B” (4) land shall ordinarily be entrusted to the Military Estates Officer: Provided that the Central Government may entrust the management of any such land to the Board. (6) The management of Class “C” land vests in the Board under section 108 of the Act.” 8. The proceedings with regard to the survey have been initiated at the instance of the writ petitioners herein. The revenue authorities entertained the application of the petitioners under the Act. Now, the petitioners contend that the Act itself is not applicable to the lands in question. In which case, the joint inspection report and the re-survey report are liable to be set aside. It is left open for the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law. 9. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside both the joint survey report dated 20-8-2003 and the proceedings of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad-1st respondent dated 17.7.2004. No costs. Dated: 23-11-2005. (B.Seshasayana Reddy, J) Tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15807 OF 2004 DISPOSED OF ON 23-11-2005.