ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief: "...to issue a Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the endorsements issued by the 3rd respondent vide F.L.No.FL/4534/2022, dated 14.11.2022 wherein and where under rejecting the request of the petitioners 1 and 2 for survey and demarcation of the boundaries for the Lands in Sy.No.904, 904-1A and 904-1B situated at Kavali Bit I, within kavali Municipality SPSR Nellore District pursuant to registered documents placed by the petitioners amounts to erroneous arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being the orders passed by this Honourable Court passed in various WPs vide WP Nos. 6690/2016, 1399/2020, 14612/2020 and consequently set aside the endorsement made by the 3rd respondent dt 14.11.2022 by allowing the Writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass order or orders ........" 2. The grievance of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the registered owner of the property bearing in Sy No. 904 for total extent of Ac. 1.68 1½ cents situated Kavali Bit - I. He has purchased the said property from his lawful vendor vide Regd. Document No. 131/2002 dated 19.2.2002. On 23.2.2012 the 1st petitioner sold part of the extent Ac. 0.98 ½ cents to Sri Janigarla Mahendra vide Document No. 463/2012 by retaining the remaining extent with him. Further, on 4.2.2015 the 1st petitioner executed gift settlement deed in favour of his wife, who is 2nd petitioner herein for an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents, vide Document No. 373/2015 by retaining left over extent Ac. 0.23 cents and that the 1st petitioner too executed rectification deed in favour of his wife/2nd petitioner herein rectifying wrongly mentioned boundaries in the Gift settlement deed dated 12.12.2012 with correct boundaries vide Doc No. 567/2018 which was registered office of Sub Registrar, Kavali. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner made an application dated 18.10.2022 to the Tahsildar, seeking for sub division of patta in respect of Sy No. 904 for an extent of Ac. 1.68 1½ cents bifurcating 98 ½ cents in favour of Janigarla Mahendra pursuant to registered document No. 463/2012 dated 24.2.2012; and Ac. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner made an application dated 18.10.2022 to the Tahsildar, seeking for sub division of patta in respect of Sy No. 904 for an extent of Ac. 1.68 1½ cents bifurcating 98 ½ cents in favour of Janigarla Mahendra pursuant to registered document No. 463/2012 dated 24.2.2012; and Ac. 0.50 cents in favour of Smt. Puchakatla Bharathi Devi vide Document No. 373/2015 dated 4.2.2015 and rectification deed vide Document No. 567/2018 dated 17.2.2018 by retaining the remaining extent of Ac. 0.23 cents. He further stated that as there is boundary dispute in between him and adjacent owners, he approached the 3rd respondent through "On Line" by paying necessary charges seeking to survey the land and fix up the boundaries. The Tahsildar issued an endorsement as if the Mandal Surveyor visited on 7.10.2022 on that date the petitioner and other adjacent owners who raised boundary dispute are present, on enquiry as if it is not feasible for survey for the land in Sy No. 904-1A for an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents, he issued an endorsement say so as if it is not sub divided as if, the adjacent owner is not willing to survey, so that rejected the petitioner request under BSO 34 A Para 20 (a). Similarly the application made by his wife seeking to survey the land in Sy No. 904-1B for an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents is also rejected on the premise as if the adjacent neighbor land owners are not cooperating. Questioning the said endorsements, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, as per endorsement, dated 14.11.2022 issued in favour of the petitioners, it was stated that as per Government record, it is not sub divided, but in the endorsement itself shows that Sy.Nos. 904-1A Ac 0.20 cents, and 904-1B Ac 0.50 cents which means the land was already sub divided, and was assigned 1A and 1B in Sy.No.904. He further submits that when the adjacent owners raised boundary disputes under the said circumstances, to curb the said dispute and to purchase peace, approached the authorities seeking to survey and demarcate the boundaries. 904-1A Ac 0.20 cents, and 904-1B Ac 0.50 cents which means the land was already sub divided, and was assigned 1A and 1B in Sy.No.904. He further submits that when the adjacent owners raised boundary disputes under the said circumstances, to curb the said dispute and to purchase peace, approached the authorities seeking to survey and demarcate the boundaries. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this Court in various expressions reported in Muramalla Padmavathi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2016 (3) ALD 650 , wherein it was held that, merely because there is no specific provision in A P Survey and Boundaries Act 1923 providing survey of the private lands, he cannot said that the authorities in the Survey Department of the State Government are prohibited from survey of private lands, it is incumbent on the officials of the survey department of the State Government to survey private lands if a request to that effect is made, after collecting the necessary charges therefor. Learned counsel further submits that, by following the above citation, this Court in WP No.1399 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020 held that to conduct survey and demarcate the boundaries after receiving necessary charges. He further submits that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court in WP No.14612 of 2020 dated 21.8.2020 held that "it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the demarcation of the boundaries of the subject land by way of survey be made by the competent authority by following due procedure and after affording an opportunity to all the affected persons within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order." Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the adjacent owner is not cooperating for survey and therefore the 3rd respondent rejected the request of the petitioners for survey and demarcate the boundaries and to that effect the 3rd respondent has issued the endorsement dated 14.11.2022. 6. As seen from the impugned endorsement dated 14.11.2022, wherein it was mentioned that: "It is not bifurcated as per Government records, the neighbor boundary holders are not accepted to fix the boundaries. Hence, not feasible to fix boundaries as per BSO 34A, para 20(a)." 7. 6. As seen from the impugned endorsement dated 14.11.2022, wherein it was mentioned that: "It is not bifurcated as per Government records, the neighbor boundary holders are not accepted to fix the boundaries. Hence, not feasible to fix boundaries as per BSO 34A, para 20(a)." 7. On perusing the material on record, it is very clear that when the petitioners paid the requisite charges for survey and for demarcation, it is the duty of the Mandal Surveyor to fix up a date and survey the land by fixing boundaries with demarcation, if anyone is objected, it is always open for them to seek assistance from the Police Station concerned to curb law and order problem if any. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the Muramalla Padmavathi's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that, if survey is sought by a person, after issuing notice on parties interested and in particular the registered holders of land, the concerned official should conduct survey and demarcation in their presence. So, in view of the above, while conducting the survey of private lands the respondents should follow the principles. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition while declaring the endorsement vide F.L.No.FL/4534/2022, dated 14.11.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The endorsement, vide F.L.No.FL/4534/2022, dated 14.11.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent, is hereby set aside. Further, the 3rd respondent is directed to cause a survey for demarcating the lands of the petitioners by considering their request, within eight (08) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to the petitioners and other affected parties and communicate his decision thereon to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.