Alavala Narasimha Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

ALAVALA KRISHNA KUMARI,, W/O. NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED 64 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. 2-119, VEERAPANENIGUDEM, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 286.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH-522 238.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT CHILAKALAPUDI, MACHILIPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-521 002.

¶16

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RDO OFFICE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521 301.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 521 101.

¶18

THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 521 101.

¶19

2

¶20

HBKM,J W.P.No.1796 of 2026

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondents 2 to 5 in not considering my representations dated 23.12.2025, 22.12.2025, 20.12.2025 and 02.12.2025 for conducting the survey for fixation of boundaries to the land an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents in Survey N0.217/6A in Veerapanenigudem, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, even after applying the F-line application not receiving the same, which is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, rules framed there under and offending to the section 34-A and 34-B of Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Orders, consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to conduct survey and fix boundaries to the land an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents in Survey No.217/6A of Veerapanenigudem, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to consider my representations dated 23.12.2025, 22.12.2025, 20.12.2025 and 02.12.2025 for conducting the survey for fixation of boundaries to the land an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents in Survey N0.217/6A in Veerapanenigudem, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, pending disposal of main writ petition and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶26

1.BATTULA SANJAIAH GANDHI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

3

¶30

HBKM,J W.P.No.1796 of 2026

¶31

The Court made the following Order:

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶33

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents, more particularly the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not considering the petitioners’ representations dated 23.12.2025, 22.12.2025, 20.12.2025 and 02.12.2025 for conducting the survey to fix the boundaries to the land in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in survey No.217/6A in Veerapanenigudem, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, even after applying the F-line application not receiving the same.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying upon the written instructions of the Tahsildar, Gannavaram Mandal/ 4^th respondent, submits that with regard to the representation of the petitioners dated 20.12.2025 to the 4^th respondent for conducting survey, it was noted that the extent claimed by the petitioners i.e., Ac.0.50 cents in RS.No.2176A is mismatched with the revenue records. As per adangal, RS.No.217-6A is sub-divided into RS.No.217-6A1 in an extent of Ac.0.75 cents and RS.No.217-6A2 in an extent of Ac.0.20 cents. As per Section 9, 10 and 15 of Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923, “the jurisdiction of survey authorities is limited only to fix the boundaries and the Act expressly mandates that disputes relating to possession or title have to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court”. In the instant case, the petitioners could not

¶35

4

¶36

HBKM,J W.P.No.1796 of 2026

¶37

establish their possession and title over the subject land. Without having any decretal order over the subject land in favour of the petitioners, the official respondents could not take up survey and fixation of boundaries.

¶38

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners paid water tax vide receipts dated 23.04.2022 and 02.07.2025.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, the 4^th respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits, strictly in accordance with law, by disposing of the representation of the petitioners dated 20.12.2025. If there are any other representations like dated 02.12.2025, 22.12.2025 and 23.12.2025, they shall also be disposed of along with the representation of the petitioners dated 20.12.2025 within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the same shall be communicated to the petitioners. The written instructions shall be made as part of the Court record.

¶40