Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1120 (AP)

Golli Nagayamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-09-04

VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

body2014
ORDER Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. 1. The contesting respondents have filed vacate stay petition viz., W.V.M.P. No. 2298 of 2013. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have made submission in the writ petition itself. Hence, with their consent, the writ petition itself is being disposed of. 2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who are mother and daughter, claim to be owners of an extent of Ac. 0.16 1/2 cents of land in survey No. 225/2 and also an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents of land together with house in Survey No. 225/2 at Narsipatnam Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners 3 to 5 claim to be owners of Ac. 2.60 cents of land in survey No. 225/1 of the same village. It is alleged that respondents 4 to 7, who are adjacent landholders, have unauthorisedly trespassed into the land of the petitioners and cut down the trees. A civil suit for injunction, being O.S. No. 195 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, is also stated to be filed by the petitioners. At the request of petitioners 1 and 2, demarcation and boundaries were fixed by the Mandal Surveyor, Narsipatnam, and he submitted his report dated 14.07.2011 making certain observations against respondents 4 to 7 herein. The said survey report together with sketch appears to have been appealed against by respondents 4 to 7 before the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Respondent No. 3 herein. 3. It is further submitted by the parties that by virtue of orders of this court dated 25.04.2013 in W.P. No. 12696 of 2013 the said appellate authority was directed to disposed of appeal at the earliest and in any event within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the appellate authority, respondent No. 3 herein, issued impugned notice, in the appeal, bearing Rc. No. 14/2011/DIOA dated (sic).07.2013 proposing to conduct survey for fixing the boundaries with respect to Sy. Nos. 225/1 and 225/2. The said notice was issued to all the adjacent landholders including the petitioners as well as respondents 4 to 7. Questioning the said notice, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners. 4. No. 14/2011/DIOA dated (sic).07.2013 proposing to conduct survey for fixing the boundaries with respect to Sy. Nos. 225/1 and 225/2. The said notice was issued to all the adjacent landholders including the petitioners as well as respondents 4 to 7. Questioning the said notice, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners. 4. On 04.07.2013, while issuing Rule Nisi, this court followed the earlier order of this court in M. Koteshwar Rao v. Tahsildar (W.P. No. 1180 of 2013 dated 23.01.2013) and consequently, granted interim stay of all further proceedings. 5. The view expressed by the learned single Judge in M. Koteshwar Rao's case, referred to above, was also expressed by the learned single Judge in Rachakonda Nagaiah v. Govt. of A.P. [ 2013 (3) ALD 156 ] (WP. No. 38104 of 2012 dated 26.12.2012) and against the said judgment, an appeal, being WA. No. 110 of 2013 was preferred by the petitioner therein before the Division Bench and by judgment dated 14.06.2013, the order of the learned single Judge was set aside and the appeal was allowed directed the Deputy Inspector of Survey to conduct survey of the land. The said judgment of the Division bench was followed by another Division Bench (to which I am a party) in WA. No. 1003 of 2013 dated 16.07.2013. In view of the said decision of the Division Bench, therefore, the ratio in Rachakonda Nagaiah's case as well as in M. Koteshwar Rao's case (referred to above) does not any more survive. In view of that, the interim stay granted by this Court in this writ petition on 04.07.2013 deserves to be vacated and accordingly, WVMP. No. 2298 of 2013 stands allowed. 6. 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 filed 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. The conducting of such survey, as per the filed 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, against the impugned notice, is not called for and the survey is required to be conducted accordingly. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, seeks to raise objections to the manner in which the survey is to be conducted, particularly, in view of the earlier survey report of the Mandal Surveyor. 8. In view of the fact that the appeal against the said surveyor’s report is pending before respondent No. 3 and the parties would have adequate opportunity to make all their submission in the said appeal, it is not just and necessary to entertain the objections on the part of the petitioners at this stage, as the surveyor is not empowered to adjudicate on the said objections. The parties, therefore, are at liberty to raise their objections before the appellate authority if they have any grievance again the survey so that the appellate authority would look into the said objections in the light of the survey report and then take appropriate action. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Let the survey be conducted, as per the impugned notice, by fixing a fresh date and a notice be given to all the parties herein as well as any other adjacent landholders, who are likely to be affected by the said survey. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.