ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Mr. B. Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9. 2. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS i) Petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2. They are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.1.25 guntas in Survey No.306/A/1, Acs.3.16 guntas in Survey No.306/B, Acs.1.22 guntas in Survey No.306/D, Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.306/E, Ac.0.02 guntas in Survey No.307/A, Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.307/D, Acs.1.18 guntas in Survey No.307/G, Ac.0.25 guntas in Survey No.307/H/2, making a total extent of Acs.14.24 guntas, situated at Ainapur Village, Komuravelly Mandal, Siddipet District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds in the year 2004. Since the date of purchase, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands. Their names were also mutated in revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour. There are standing crops i.e., paddy, mango, guava and banana over the subject lands. ii) When respondent Nos.4 and 5 issued notices dated 11.07.2024 and 30.08.2024 proposing to conduct survey of land in Survey Nos.270 and 304 of the aforesaid Village at the behest of respondent Nos.7 and 8, the petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.26127 of 2024 to set aside those notices. Vide order dated 21.09.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.5 to consider the objections of the petitioners before proceeding with survey. iii) Thereafter, respondent No.7 filed a suit vide O.S. No.474 of 2024 for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.0.18 guntas in Survey No.304/B/1, Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey No.270/G/1/1/1 and Ac.0.10 guntas in Survey No.304/1 of the aforesaid Village and the said suit is pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet. There is no interim injunction in the said suit. iv) The petitioners herein also filed a suit vide O.S. No.501 of 2024 for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.7 and 8 in respect of the subject property. Learned trial Court granted interim injunction on 16.10.2024 and the same is being extended from time to time. There is no interim injunction in the said suit. iv) The petitioners herein also filed a suit vide O.S. No.501 of 2024 for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.7 and 8 in respect of the subject property. Learned trial Court granted interim injunction on 16.10.2024 and the same is being extended from time to time. v) During pendency of said civil suits, issuance of the aforesaid notices to conduct survey amounts to interference with the disputes pending between the parties and, therefore, the petitioners filed objection petition to the notice dated 20.08.2025 of respondent No.6. vi) When respondent Nos.7 and 8 also criminally trespassed into the subject lands with JCB and Tractor along with their henchmen and damaged the crop, the petitioners gave a report to the Police, Komuravelli Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.140 of 2020 against them for the offences under Sections - 329 (3) and 324 (5) read with 3 (5) of BNS on 15.09.2024. On completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C. No.1030 of 2025, which is pending. vii) Pursuant to the orders of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, respondent No.6 had issued notice directing the petitioners to attend survey on 02.12.2024. Challenging the same, petitioner No.1 filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.33496 of 2024. Vide order dated 06.01.2025, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the official respondents to conduct survey of lands in Survey Nos.270 and 304 after issuing notices to all the interested/affected parties. viii) Aggrieved by the said orders in W.P. No.33496 of 2024, petitioner No.1 preferred a writ appeal vide W.A. No.221 of 2025. Vide order dated 29.04.2025, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the said writ appeal setting aside the notice dated 18.11.2024. Thereafter, respondent Nos.7 to 9 filed a contempt case vide C.C. No.1669 of 2025 against respondent Nos.5 and 6 alleging non-compliance of orders in W.P. No.26127 of 2024. ix) Respondent No.6 in apprehension of contempt proceedings, in hurried manner, passed an impugned Endorsement dated 20.08.2025 rejecting the objection petition filed by the petitioners herein and without considering pendency of the aforesaid civil suits. Challenging the said endorsement, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. ix) Respondent No.6 in apprehension of contempt proceedings, in hurried manner, passed an impugned Endorsement dated 20.08.2025 rejecting the objection petition filed by the petitioners herein and without considering pendency of the aforesaid civil suits. Challenging the said endorsement, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. x) In support of their contentions, the petitioners also placed reliance on the decision in Akku Laxman Rao v. IDPL Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited , [ 2021 (3) ALD 305 ] . 3. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.7 to 9 i) The lands of the petitioners are in Survey Nos.306, 307 and 308 of Ainapur Village and they are no way concerned with the lands of these respondents. Their lands are in Survey Nos.304 and 270 of the very same village. ii) In paragraph No.16 of order in W.A. No.221 of 2025, the Division Bench of this Court observed that pendency of litigation before Civil Courts is not a bar for the Authorities to conduct survey or re- survey in the absence of any stay against the same. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed setting aside the order in W.P.No.33496 of 2024 filed by the petitioners herein. Therefore, respondent No.6 is bound to proceed with survey. Thus, the order dated 20.08.2025 of respondent No.6 is a reasoned order. iii) The petitioners cannot question the survey to be conducted in respect of land in Survey Nos.304 and 270, when the land of the petitioners is in Survey Nos.306 to 308. iv) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners with an intention to prevent the survey to be conducted. With the aforesaid contentions, they sought to dismiss the writ petition. 4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT i) The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.1.25 guntas in Survey No.306/A/1, Acs.3.16 guntas in Survey No.306/B, Acs.1.22 guntas in Survey No.306/D, Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.306/E, Ac.0.02 guntas in Survey No.307/A, Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.307/D, Acs.1.18 guntas in Survey No.307/G, Ac.0.25 guntas in Survey No.307/H/2, making a total extent of Acs.14.24 guntas, situated at Ainapur Village, Komuravelly Mandal, Siddipet District. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 criminally trespassed into their lands with JCB along with their henchmen and damaged the crop. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 criminally trespassed into their lands with JCB along with their henchmen and damaged the crop. ii) Respondent Nos.7 to 9 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in Survey Nos.304 and 270 of Ainapur Village. According to them, the petitioners’ land is in Survey Nos.306, 307 and 308 of the very same village. The petitioners’ land is nothing to do with their land. Thus, there is dispute with regard to the said land. A case in Crime No.140 of 2020 was registered against respondent Nos.7 and 8, and on completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against them. It is taken on file vide C.C. No.1030 of 2025. iii) Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S. No.501 of 2024 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 for perpetual injunction. The trial Court granted temporary injunction. The said suit is pending and the interim injunction is subsisting. iv) Respondent No.7 has filed a suit in O.S. No.474 of 2024 against the petitioners herein for perpetual injunction. The said suit is pending. There is no interim injunction order. v) On the request made by respondent Nos.7 and 9, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have issued notices dated 11.07.2024 and 30.08.2024 proposing to conduct survey, demarcate the land in Survey Nos.270 and 304 of Ainapur Village by fixing boundaries. The petitioners have submitted objections dated 22.07.2024 to the said survey. Without considering the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were proceeded with survey. The petitioners challenged the said notices by filing a writ petition vide W.P. No.26127 of 2024. Vide order dated 21.09.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.5 therein and the Tahsildar, Komaravelli Mandal to consider objections dated 22.07.2024 before proceeding with survey on the request made by respondent Nos.7 and 8 pursuant to the notices dated 11.07.2024 and 30.08.2024. vi) It is apt to note that after the said order, respondent No.7 has filed a suit in O.S. No.474 of 2024 against the petitioners for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession over the land to an extent Ac.0.18 guntas in Survey No.304/B/1, Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey No.27/G/1/1/1 and Ac.0.10 guntas in Survey No.304/1, situated at Ainapur Village. The said suit is pending. There is no interim injunction order. The said suit is pending. There is no interim injunction order. vii) Thereafter, the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S. No.501 of 2024 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 for perpetual injunction to restrain them from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the aforesaid land Acs.14.24 guntas of Ainapur Village. Vide order dated 16.10.2024, learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Siddipet granted temporary injunction till 15.11.2024 and the same is being extended from time to time. The said suit is also pending and the interim injunction order is subsisting. viii) It is also apt to note that there is no challenge to the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26127 of 2024. Thereafter, respondent No.6 has issued a notice dated 18.11.2024 for conducting survey of lands in Survey Nos.304 and 270 of Ainapur Village on the request made by respondent Nos.7 and 8. Petitioner No.1 has filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.33496 of 2024 challenging the said notice. Vide order dated 06.01.2025, this Court disposed of the said writ petition holding that if the application submitted by respondent Nos.7 to 9 fulfils all the requirements of Circular instructions issued by the Commissioner, Survey and Land Records and the injunction order granted in O.S. No.501 of 2024 is not operating on the lands in Survey Nos.270 and 304, the respondent authorities were directed to conduct survey of the lands in Survey Nos.270 and 304 after issuing notice to all interested/affected persons and after considering their objections, if any, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. ix) Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner No.1 had preferred an Intra Court Appeal vide W.A. No.221 of 2025 under Section - 15 of the Letters Patent. Vide judgment dated 29.04.2025, the Division Bench of this Court while allowing the said writ appeal set aside the said impugned notice dated 18.11.2024 issued by the respondent authorities for conducting survey holding that pendency of litigation before the Court is not a bar for the authorities to conduct survey or re-survey in the absence of any stay/interim order/interim injunction from proceeding further. x) Thereafter, vide endorsement dated 20.08.2025, respondent No.6 considered the objections submitted by the petitioners and rejected the same. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. x) Thereafter, vide endorsement dated 20.08.2025, respondent No.6 considered the objections submitted by the petitioners and rejected the same. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. xi) In the said impugned endorsement, respondent No.6 placed reliance on the order dated 21.09.2024 in W.P. No.26127 of 2024, order dated 06.01.2025 in W.P. No.33496 of 2024 and the judgment dated 29.04.2025 in W.A. No.221 of 2025. In the judgment dated 29.04.2025 in W.A. No.221 of 2025, the Division Bench of this Court placed reliance on the principle laid down by another Division Bench of this Court in Akku Laxman Rao v. IDPL Employees Co-operative Housing Society , [2021 SCC OnLine TS 1983]. xii) In the said decision, common order dated 10.02.2020 of learned Single Judge was under challenge. Vide common order dated 10.02.2020, learned Single Judge held that the Commissioner and the RDD failed to notice that the request to conduct survey was not bona fide. There was clear suppression of earlier survey and decision of the Commissioner. Thus, equities are against respondent Nos.6 and 7 therein. Therefore, the Commissioner could not have entertained such application, even assuming that such course is permissible. Learned Single Judge further held that respondent Nos.6 and 7 therein have filed suits in O.S.Nos.493 and 494 of 2014, the same are pending. Nothing prevented respondent Nos.6 and 8 from moving application to conduct survey. When there is a inter se dispute pending adjudication by competent Court, administrative authorities should hold their hands and allow persons to get their disputes resolved by the competent Court. With the said observation, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition. In an appeal, the Division Bench confirmed the said order. xiii) As discussed above, in the judgment dated 29.04.2025 in W.A. No.221 of 2025, the Division Bench of this Court held that during pendency of litigation before Courts is not a bar for the authorities to conduct survey or resurvey in the absence of any stay/interim order/interim injunction from proceeding further. Whereas, in the present case, the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S. No.501 of 2024 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 for perpetual injunction is pending and the trial Court granted temporary injunction and the same is subsisting. Therefore, the facts of the said case are slightly different to the facts of the present case. Whereas, in the present case, the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S. No.501 of 2024 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 for perpetual injunction is pending and the trial Court granted temporary injunction and the same is subsisting. Therefore, the facts of the said case are slightly different to the facts of the present case. xiv) As discussed above, it is the specific contention of the petitioners herein that respondent Nos.7 and 8 tried to trespass into the subject land with JCB and Tractor along with their henchmen and damaged the crop. Therefore, they have lodged a complaint against respondent Nos.7 and 8. The Police, Komuravelli Police Station registered a case in Crime No.140 of 2020 against them for the offences under Sections - 329 (3) and 324 (5) read with 3 (5) of BNS on 15.09.2024. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C. No.1030 of 2025 and the same is pending. xv) If there is dispute with regard to boundaries and identification of property etc., and if physical features of subject property are to be noted down, the parties to the aforesaid suits have to file an application under Order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of CPC, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting survey, demarcating the land by fixing boundaries and also for noting down physical features of property. The object and purpose of obtaining report from the Advocate Commissioner is to assist trial Court in deciding lis involved in the suits effectively. xvi) Admittedly, in the present case, there are inter se disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 9. According to the petitioners, their land is in Survey Nos.306, 307 and 308, whereas according to respondent Nos.7 to 9, their land is in Survey Nos.304 and 270 and the said land is nothing to do with the lands of the petitioners. Thus, it appears there is boundary dispute. Therefore, they have to file an application under Order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of CPC in the aforesaid suits seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting survey with the help of Survey Department Officials to demarcate the suit schedule properties in the said suit by fixing boundaries, and it is for the trial Court to consider the said applications. xvii) During pendency of the said suits, parties to the suits cannot seek survey of the lands from the Survey Department Officials as it amounts to collection of evidence which is impermissible. In the aforesaid suits, the Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 9 seeking temporary injunction are also pending. Therefore, respondent Nos.7 to 9 cannot seek survey from respondent No.6 during pendency of the said suit. It amounts to collection of evidence which is impermissible. 5. CONCLUSION In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S. No.501 of 2024 and respondent Nos.7 to 9 to file appropriate application under Order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of CPC in the aforesaid suits, to appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting survey with the help of Survey Department Officials, demarcate the suit schedule properties by fixing boundaries, and it is for the trial Court to consider the said application and dispose it of in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.