ORDER : Heard Smt.M.V.Ramana Kumari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.M.Nikitha, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel briefed by Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5 and Sri K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The reliefs sought in the present Writ Petition are as under: “(a) Declaring the Notice/summons dated 25.06.2024 issued by the 4th respondent – Mandal Land Survey Officer, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna District, calling upon me to be present at the time of survey on 29.06.2024 at 10:00 A.M as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India; (b) Consequently, direct the respondents not to conduct survey in pursuance of the Notice/Summons dated 25.06.2024 issued under Section 23 of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923; (c) grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are that the Petitioner is the agricultural tenant of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.18 cents in Sy.No.456, Nangegadda Village, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna District by paying rent to the Respondent No.5 – Temple in advance; that the Writ Petitioner secured the tenancy rights by way of auction undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments vide proceedings dated 30.07.2022; that the Petitioner has his own agricultural land just adjoining on the western side of the land belonging to the Respondent No.5 – Temple; the wife of the Petitioner is also the owner of the land on western side of the land belonging to the Respondent No.5 – Temple. 4. 4. While so, the Respondent No.5 – Temple has submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar, Nagayalanka Mandal to conduct a survey; that, consequently, the Mandal Land Survey Officer (Respondent No.4) had issued Notice dated 25.06.2024 (impugned herein) under Section 23 of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (the Act) by marking a copy to various neighbors including the Writ Petitioner informing that a survey is proposed to be conducted on 29.06.2024 at 10:00 A.M; that a direction was also given to produce title deeds relating to each person’s land at the time of survey, thereby making it clear that the surveyor would proceed ex-parte if anyone fails to attend; that the Writ Petitioner being the president of the Bar Association of Avanigadda requested the Respondent No.4 to provide some more time for obtaining copies of documents and also that on the scheduled date, the Writ Petitioner had to attend National Lok Adalat (i.e., on 29.06.2024). 5. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner had subsequently learnt that the Founder Family Member of the Respondent No.5 – Temple had submitted a ‘Representation’ alleging that the bunds of the temple land in an extent of Ac.5.18 cents in Sy.No.456 of Nangegadda Village were removed thereby diminishing the extent due to alteration; that the survey was sought by the said Founder Family Member only to re-fix the boundaries by measuring the land of the Respondent No.5 – Temple and the land of the neighbors including that of the Writ Petitioner herein. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Impugned Notice is issued under Section 23 of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and that the Mandal Land Survey Officer has no jurisdiction to conduct survey of the private land by invoking the power under Section 23 of the Act. It is further urged that the conduct of survey in respect of private properties is governed by the Standing Orders of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue. 6. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel representing Respondent No.5 has drawn the attention of this Court to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5. The said Counter Affidavit was filed by none other than the Founder Family Member of Respondent No.5 on 10.07.2024. 6. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel representing Respondent No.5 has drawn the attention of this Court to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5. The said Counter Affidavit was filed by none other than the Founder Family Member of Respondent No.5 on 10.07.2024. It is stated in the Counter Affidavit that the Writ Petitioner, having participated in the public auction on 24.06.2022 in respect of Ac.5.18 cents wet land in Sy.No.456 in Nangigedda Village, had become the successful bidder and was granted tenancy rights for a period of three years (subject matter of W.P.No.23508 of 2022 which was disposed of); that the agricultural land is surrounded by ‘bode’ on southern side whereas it is covered by bund on other three sides; that there is gayalu land on the southern side of the subject property, which is also covered by bund dividing the subject property from gayalu land; that the Writ Petitioner had removed the southern side bund, which fact was detected recently; that, therefore, the Founder Family Member, who is also the deponent of the Counter Affidavit had submitted a Police Complaint on 03.07.2024 to the Station House Officer of Nagayalanka Police Station; that, previously, he has submitted a Representation on 22.06.2024 to the Tahsildar, Nagayalanka (Respondent No.3), bringing the said fact of removal/alteration of bund by the Writ Petitioner to his notice. 7. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that as per the request of the Writ Petitioner to postpone the survey on account of his professional preoccupation, the Respondent No.4 had accommodated the request of the Writ Petitioner and had issued fresh Notice fixing the next date as 27.06.2024 for the purpose of conducting survey on 03.07.2024; that the said Notice was, in fact, received by the Petitioner on the same day (i.e., on 27.06.2024), whereas the present Writ Petition is listed for consideration before this Court on 28.06.2024; that by this date of listing (28.06.2024), the Petitioner already had full knowledge that the date of survey is postponed to 03.07.2024 and therefore the purpose of filing the present Writ Petition has become infructuous. It is further stated that the factum of the survey being conducted on 03.07.2024 was concealed from this Court deliberately by the Writ Petitioner when this Writ Petition came-up for hearing on 28.06.2024. It is further stated that the factum of the survey being conducted on 03.07.2024 was concealed from this Court deliberately by the Writ Petitioner when this Writ Petition came-up for hearing on 28.06.2024. It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit, as projected by the learned Senior Counsel, that if the survey is delayed, it would become impossible to conduct survey in this season due to the on-setting of the monsoon and due to commencement of the agricultural operations. 8. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the present Writ Petition is only intended to scuttle the surveying process with an oblique motive since the Writ Petitioner knows very well that if survey is conducted, the truth of shifting/altering of boundary stones (or bunds) would be revealed and thereby, the attempt of the Writ Petitioner to grab the temple land would become evident. 9. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Respondent No.3 has ample power under Section 23 of the Act. He would submit that Section 23 falls under Chapter 4 dealing with miscellaneous powers of the Executive. Section 23 is the general power that is given to the surveying authorities for the purpose of summoning witnesses and for production of documents. He would further submit that on the requisition made by the Founder Family Member there is no legal infirmity or arbitrariness in Respondent No.4 issuing summons directing all the interested parties to be present during the time of survey along with their supporting documents. 10. Rebutting the contention raised by the Writ Petitioner that the surveying authorities have the power to only survey the Government land and that they have no power to survey the private lands, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Muramalla Padmavathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors: 2016 (3) ALD 650 . Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Paragraph Nos.3 to 8 of the said judgment. The said paragraphs are usefully extracted hereunder: “3. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors: 2016 (3) ALD 650 . Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Paragraph Nos.3 to 8 of the said judgment. The said paragraphs are usefully extracted hereunder: “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue have placed before me order dt.14-06-2013 in W.A.No.110 of 2013 wherein a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the Government Circular Rc.No.N2/1741/2010 dt.18-05-2010, prescribing guidelines, based on Board Standing Order No.34-A paragraph 20 and proceeding in D.O.Rc.No.N1/4296/2012 dt.22-08-2012 of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in regard to the demarcation of survey numbers, opined that there is no bar for revenue officials to conduct survey of lands at request of private parties subject to their furnishing relevant documents. It specifically held that the Circular referred to above issued by the Government permits revenue officials to conduct survey on applications of the private parties. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents also admitted the same fact. 5. The view expressed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.110 of 2013 has also been followed by another Division Bench in its order dt.16-07-2013 in W.A.No.1003 of 2013. Both these Division Benches have rejected the view that there cannot be survey of private lands by authorities of the Survey Department of the Government. 6. These two judgments have been followed in Golli Nagayamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam and others, 2015 (4) ALD 648 = 2015 (4) ALT 98 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 7. Merely because there is no specific provision in AP Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short „the Act?) providing survey of private lands, it cannot be said that the authorities in the Survey Department of the State Government are prohibited from doing survey of private lands. Unless such a prohibition is provided in the Act, as public servants having expertise in doing survey (like other experts in fields of ballistics, handwriting, DNA etc.), 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. The circulars referred to above as well as other Government G.Os. The circulars referred to above as well as other Government G.Os. issued by the Revenue Department in this regard would be binding and would govern the procedure to be followed in respect of survey to be conducted for private patta lands as well. 8. As held by this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector, Hyderabad District and another, 2001 (3) ALD 600 = 2001 (3) ALT 200 , the scheme of the AP 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 land and fixation of boundaries and there is no provision under the said Act for making any detailed enquiries with regard to right, title and interest of the persons in the land. Persons who are aggrieved by any decision referred to in the survey have liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for adjudication, if needed. There is also a remedy under Section 11 of the said Act to the appellate authority constituted under the Act instead of Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records. As held in Khaja Naseeruddin and others v. Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad and others 2007 (1) ALD 191 = 2007 (1) ALT 707 , 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.” 11. In the above extract, the learned Single Judge of the composite High Court had categorically held that merely because there is no specific provision in the Act providing for survey of private lands, it cannot be said that the authorities in the Survey Department of the State Government are prohibited from surveying of the private lands. It is further stated that unless such a prohibition is provided in the Act, 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 thereof. 12. It is further stated that unless such a prohibition is provided in the Act, 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 thereof. 12. This apart, when an allegation of this nature is raised against the Writ Petitioner that he took advantage of the ownership of the neighboring land and has shifted or effaced the boundaries surreptitiously, there is no reason why the surveying authorities should not conduct a survey for the purpose of fact finding and for the purpose of restoring the land to the rightful owner. In so far as the legal objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that under Section 23 of the Act, the authorities have no power to survey the private lands, this Court would hold that this contention is untenable in the light of the judgment of this Court in Muramalla Padmavathi?s case. In so far as the complaint made by the Writ Petitioner that sufficient time that was given to him to be present for survey along with the title deeds was too short, from the narration of facts from the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5, it is clear that the date and time of survey has been re-scheduled to 03.07.2024 at the behest of the Writ Petitioner only. Apparently, on account of the stay order granted by this Court on 28.06.2024, this proposed survey by Respondent No.4 was stalled. 13. This Court is also of the view that the only mode that is available for verification and demarcation of boundaries in terms of the rights of the parties based on their titles, is only by surveying. It is a fact finding exercise and therefore such exercise cannot be hindered on grounds of technicalities. 14. In the above premise, this Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. As a consequence, the Interim Order granted by this Court on 28.06.2024 stands vacated. No order as to costs. 15. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.