APHC010474142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No: 991 of 2025 ALONG WITH WRIT APPEAL No.993 of 2025 Bench Sr.Nos:- 58 & 59 [3483] WRIT APPEAL No: 991 of 2025 Tadiboina Nagaratnamma ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. Tagore Yadav Yaragorla Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Muncipal Admn Urban Dev, Mrs. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities, GP for Revenue, Mr. Narasimha Rao Gudiseva CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 16th September, 2025. P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 05.08.2025, passed in W.P.No.20312 of 2025. The learned Single Judge by virtue of judgment and order impugned directed the respondents to depute the Town Surveyor to conduct the survey pursuant to the application which had been submitted by the petitioner. 2. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is Threefold. Firstly that the direction insofar as it directed the Town Surveyor is concerned, 2 HCJ & RCJ WA_991_2025 & WA_993_2025 was unsustainable, inasmuch as the site in question is agricultural in character and it is only the revenue authorities who could have conducted the survey. Secondly that the petitioner was not at all made a party in the writ petition even when there was a pending civil dispute and Civil Suit between the parties, which fact was concealed from the learned Single Judge in their writ petition. Thirdly, on the basis of an application which was filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority for conducting survey, the same had been rejected on 31.05.2025, on the ground that there was a Civil Suit pending between the parties which fact also had been concealed before the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned counsel for writ petitioner/respondent No.6 would submit that the survey has since been conducted, and in case the appellant was aggrieved of the finding recorded in the survey report, the same could be challenged in Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the official respondents would submit that the reference to the Town Surveyor was justified inasmuch as the land in question is situate in the midst of the Tenali Town and therefore it is only the Town Surveyor who could have conducted the survey. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It appears that the directions for conducting survey had already been carried out and therefore in case the petitioner - appellant feels aggrieved, an 3 HCJ & RCJ WA_991_2025 & WA_993_2025 appeal could be preferred, in the instant case, since the survey has been conducted by the Town Surveyor, before the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records. It would be open to the appellant, in the appeal proceedings, to question the authority of the Town Surveyor to conduct the survey. 7. Since the matter pertains to the very jurisdiction of the Town Surveyor, nothing would prevent the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records from opining on the jurisdiction of the Town Surveyor. 8. This writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, W.A.No.993 of 2025, which is filed challenging the dismissal of the review petition, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in these cases, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN