APHC010181582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9921/2025 Between: Yellina Suryanarayana and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GANDHAM SR PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9921/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not conducting survey and fixing up the boundaries to dry land in survey No.386-2 for an extent of Ac.4.28 cents, survey No.219 for an extent of Ac.1.60 cents, Survey No.411 for an extent of Ac.4.10 cents, Survey No.412-2 for an extent of Ac.2.64 cents and survey No.416 for an extent of Ac.0.83 cents, total an extent of Ac.13.45 cents situated at Taduvai village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, Eluru District, as illegal and arbitrary.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioners herein is that even though the petitioners submitted representations dated 11.11.2024, 23.12.2024 and 31.12.2024 seeking survey and demarcation of boundaries in respect of the properties held by the petitioners, the respondents neither conducted survey nor issued any other proceedings pursuant the said representations. Hence the writ petition. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furnished the written instructions issued by the 4th respondent, dated 10.04.2025, wherein it is stated as under: 3 “….After due course of the notices served the survey work was conducted on 11.11.2024. During the survey it was identified that the extents covered by R.S.No.411, 412/2, 415, 416, 386/2 classified as Government dry and private lands. As per the portion deed and other records of the petitioner the petitioner is having Ac.2.64 cents in R.S.No.412/2 of Taduvai village. But an extent of Ac.1.48 cents is only under the possession of the petitioner from long back. The remaining extent is under the possession of Sri Ponnaganti Anil and Sri Ponnaganti Veera Bhadrarao. As per the portion deed and other records of the petitioner, the petitioner is having an extent of Ac.0.83 cents in R.S.No.416 of Taduvai village. But an extent of Ac.0.66 cents is under the encroachment of the petitioner instated of the Ac.0.83 cents. The balance extent is under the possession of the neighbouring ryoths. The petitioner is also having possession only Ac.0.34 cents in R.S.No.415 instated of Ac.2.57 cents. The remaining extent Ac.2.23 cents is under the possession of Sri Ponnaganti Veera Venkata Naga Anil and others. The said facts were identified during the survey. As per survey report there is a variation between the webland and other records and physical possession of the petitioners land which was mentioned in his affidavit. The Mandal Surveyor, Jangareddigudem issued endorsement with above facts to the petitioner on 11.01.2025, the same was acknowledged by the petitioner”. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that pursuant to the representation of the petitioners, the 4th respondent conducted survey on 11.11.2024 and the petitioners were also issued an endorsement to that effect on 11.01.2025. But in reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such endorsement was neither communicated to the petitioners nor served on the petitioners. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the grievance of the petitioners was already considered and redressed and conducted the survey and 4 demarcation on 11.11.2024 and also issued an endorsement dated 11.01.2025. The further allegation of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the endorsement was not served on the petitioners. But the written instructions reported that the petitioners have acknowledged the said endorsement. 7. In the circumstances, the 4th respondent herein is directed to communicate or serve a copy of endorsement dated 11.01.2025 to the petitioners either by way of registered post with acknowledgment due or by hand through messenger. The petitioner may also approach the 4th respondent within one week from today, upon which, the 4th respondent is directed to serve the copy under acknowledgment with immediate effect. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Dt:21.04.2025 Note: Issue C.C. by 24.04.2025 B/o. SJ 5 85 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9921 of 2025 21.04.2025 ssjj