Allowed

Ch. Satyanaryana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Jul 2021WP/27461/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court held that pendency of civil suit or neighbor objections do not bar survey under the AP Survey Act unless a court restrains it. Directions were issued for survey and boundary fixation with notice to neighbors.

What did the court decide?

Directed 4th respondent to conduct survey and fix boundaries with notice to neighbors within 8 weeks.

Ch. Satyanaryana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27461 of 2018

¶3

ORDER: (Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App (Virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic)

¶4

The present writ petition is filed inter alia challenging the in action of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents in conducting survey and demarcation of the land in Survey No.328/1b admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.36 ½ cents situated in the Reddygudem village and mandal, Krishna District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the land in question having purchased the same for valuable consideration through a Registered Sale Deed document No.572/11 dated 08.01.2014 and that he is in continuous possession of the subject land without interruption from any corner. He also claims that his name has been duly mutated in revenue records, pattadar pass book and title deeds recognizing his ownership and possessory rights in respect of the subject land were issued to him by the revenue officials. His grievance in the present writ petition is that though he had applied for demarcation of the said land, the 4^th respondent has not been taking necessary action for the purpose of demarcation and fixation of boundaries. He further claims that though the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer directed the 4^th respondent to complete the survey and demarcation, the same was not complied by the 4^th respondent. Under the said circumstances, he is constrained to approach this Court, seeking appropriate directions. Hence, this writ petition.

W.P.No.27461 of 2018

NJS,J

Contradicting the averments made in the writ petition, the 4^th respondent filed a counter affidavit sworn on 01.09.2018 inter alia stating that an extent of Ac.11.69 cents in R.S.No.328/1B is a patta land and the Mandal Surveyor, Reddygudem reported that the petitioner is in enjoyment only to an extent of Ac.4.69 cents though he purchased an extent of Ac.6.37 ½ cents in the said survey number and the remaining extent of Ac.7.00 cents is under the enjoyment of his neighbouring ryot by name Sri Gogulamudi Krishna Reddy. It is also stated that the Mandal Surveyor, Reddygudem has further reported that a Civil Suit in O.S.No.169 of 2017 is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzividu, regarding the title of land in R.S.No.328/1B of Reddygudem village and that on 03.06.2018, he reported that there is a difference between the extents mentioned in the registered document and actual possession of the property on ground and as the adjacent ryot has raised objection for fixation of boundaries stating that a title dispute is pending, the boundaries were not fixed. It is further stated that the above said aspects were informed to the 3^rd respondent vide proceedings in R.C.No.B312/2016 dated 08.06.2018 marking a copy to the petitioner, but the letter addressed to him was returned back by the postal department as the petitioner is not residing in the address given in his earlier application. Thus, it is categorically stated that as there is a difference with regard to the extent mentioned in the registered document and physical possession of the property on ground and a civil suit is pending, boundaries were not fixed in respect of the subject matter land.

¶10

A rejoinder dated 13.03.2020 was filed by the petitioner stating inter alia that he has no knowledge as to whether any suit in O.S.No.169 of 2017 is filed and pending before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nuzividu, as no

¶11

summons were received and further that the said Gogulamudi Krishna Reddy must have influenced the Mandal Surveyor to write about the particulars of the said plaint, that the Mandal Surveyor is not prepared to conduct survey and fix the boundaries even after a letter dated 06.03.2018 was addressed by the 3^rd respondent for fixation of boundaries of the petitioner’s land. While stating that the Adangals maintained by the revenue-authorities clearly show that the petitioner is in possession of Ac.6.37 cents in Survey No.328/1B1, the petitioner submits that the averments in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is in possession of only extent of Ac.4.69 cents is not tenable.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, representing the respondents.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition submits that the action on the part of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner for survey and demarcation of the land in question is not just or tenable. He submits that as per the provisions of the A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the authorities are duty bound to conduct survey and fix the boundaries. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner purchased the land in question through a registered Sale Deed and the revenue officials have also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the same. He submits that the survey cannot be rejected on the mere ground of pendency of suit or on the ground that a dispute was raised by one of the neighbouring ryots.

W.P.No.27461 of 2018

NJS,J

The learned counsel in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District and another¹ , Khaja Naseeruddin and others v. Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad and others² , Golli Nagayamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others³ and Muramalla Padmavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others⁴ .

¶18

The learned Assistant Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the respondents in the light of facts and circumstances set out in the counter-affidavit have not conducted the survey and therefore the same cannot be found fault with.

¶19

The case set out in the counter-affidavit and a reading of the communication addressed by the 4^th respondent dated 08.06.2018 to the 3^rd respondent would go to show that survey as sought for by the petitioner could not conducted for the reasons inter alia in view of the pendency of suit and objection raised by the said Gogulamudi Krishna Reddy. However, the said communication was not served on the petitioner and therefore the same is of no consequence. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act barring conduct of survey and fixation of boundaries during the pendency of a suit or an order restraining the conduct of the same by a competent Court, the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit cannot be countenanced.

¶20

1 2001(3) ALT 200

¶21

2 2007(1) ALT 707

¶22

3 2015(4) ALT 98

¶23

4 2016(3) ALT 653

W.P.No.27461 of 2018

NJS,J

The proceedings under the Act are not conclusive proof of title to the immovable property. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the expression of the learned single Judge in Hyderabad Potteries’s case (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner which reads thus:

¶28

“21. A bare reading of scheme of the A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 would make it clear that the survey made under the said Act is mainly intended for the purposes of identification of the lands and fixation of boundaries. There is no provision under the Act intending to make any detail enquiries with regard to the right, title and interest of the persons in the lands. It is neither the object nor the scheme of the said Act.”

¶29

Further in another judgment in Golli Nagayamma’s case (3 supra) , while referring to the attending facts and circumstances of the case with regard to direction of the appellate authority to conduct survey during the pendency of the appeal filed by the respondents in the writ petition and suit filed by the petitioner therein, a learned single Judge was not inclined to interfere with the notice proposing to conduct survey and dismissed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

¶30

“7. The controversy with respect to boundaries between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 4 to 7 on the other hand, is also required to be settled in order to effectively deal with the appeal pending before respondent No.3. It is in that context that respondent No.3 has ordered a survey to be conducted. The conducting of such survey, as per the field measurement book and determination of boundaries, in my view, would not cause any prejudice to any of the parties and the resolution of the dispute with respect to boundaries would enable the appellate authority to effectively deal with the appeal pending before it. Hence, the intervention by this Court,

W.P.No.27461 of 2018

NJS,J

against the impugned notice, is not called for and the survey is required to be conducted accordingly.”

¶35

In the light of the above mentioned legal position, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused if a direction is issued to the respondents to conduct survey and fix the boundaries in respect of the land in question by issuing appropriate notices.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4^th respondent to take necessary action on the petitioner’s representation for conduct of survey of the subject matter land and fixation of boundaries thereto, after issuing appropriate notice to the said Gogulumudi Krishna Reddy as also to all the concerned neighbouring land owners who are likely to be affected by the said survey, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to right, title and possession etc., of the subject matter property either by the petitioner or any other party and O.S.No.169 of 2017 referred to above shall be disposed of on its merits without reference to any of the observations made in the writ petition.

¶38

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

NINALA JAYASURYA, J

Date: 24.07.2021 BLV

W.P.No.27461 of 2018

NJS,J