IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI^ TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 215 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred againstthe order dt.09.01.2025 in W.P.No.26568 of 2024, on the file of the High Court. " Between: 1. Ilindra Tirumala Venkata Ramana, S/o. Chinna Thayallu Setty aged 66 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D. No. 7-7-24/7A, Kumudvalli Road, FCI Colony, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District. 2. Ilindra Veera Venkata Satish Kumar, S/o. Chinna Thayallu Setty, aged 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D. NO. 27-4-6, lllindravari Street, Near Elephant Tree, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...APPELLANTS AND 1. P. Sampoorna, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged 50 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o.118, Rajupalem, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District. P Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Adeaiah, aged 59 years, Occ.Business, R/o.118, Rajupalem, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District M Koti Reddy, S/o.Venkata Subba Reddy aged 49 years, Occ.Cultivation, R/o.Jayavaram Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. Ongole Municipal Corporation, rep by its commissioner Ongole Prakasam District. Joint Sub Registrar-1, Ongole Registrar office, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Mohd Shakeer Hatneed, S/o.Rahman Saheb, aged 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1®* Floor, Vijaya Complex, Besides PDCC Bank Kurnool , Road, Ongole. 'V » V > ...RESPONDENTS^ :• • A' \ lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order, dated 09.01.2025 made in W.P.No.26568 of 2024, pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : SRI K. V. RAGHU VEER - Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI K.S. MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSE FOR Mrs. PANGULURU RACHANA r- Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR MUNIPAL ADMN & UI^AN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI A.S.C. BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010118052025 Bench Sr.No:-1 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 215 of 2025 llindra Tirumala Venkata Ramana and another ...Appellants Vs. P Sampoorna and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. K V Raghu Veer Mr. K S Murthy, Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. Panguluru Rachana for R.1 to R.3 / Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for R.4 Mr. A S C Bose for R.5 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : 29‘^ April, 2025 DATE PC : The present \A/rit appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 09.01.2025 passed in \/VP.No.26568 of 2024. It appears that the appellants and respondent No.7 herein (respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the writ petition) had approached the official respondents seeking demarcation of the properties purchased by them and falling under Sy.Nos. 129 & 130 of Ongole Rural in Prakasam District. 2. 2 HCJ & RC, J WA 215 2025 i The demarcation was ordered by the Commissioner of Ongole Municipal Corporation (respondent No.2 in the writ petition) and a report was furnished by the Town Surveyor which suggested that the properties of which demarcation was sought did not actually fall under Sy.Nos. 129 & 130 but were falling under Sy.No.128. 3. The Commissioner, Ongole Municipal Corporation, based upon the survey report furnished by the Town Surveyor, issued an endorsement, dated 17.09.2024. Assailing the said endorsement, the writ petition came to be filed in which it was alleged that the endorsement should not be acted upon inasmuch as even when the petitioners had a right to appear and to be heard and a notice ought to have been issued in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, relevant statutes were not followed and, therefore, it was sought that the endorsement, dated 17.09.2024, be not acted upon. The learned single Judge, while considering the petition, recorded the statement made by learned standing counsel for the Ongole Municipal Corporation that a fresh survey would be conducted after giving notice to the 4. petitioners. In that view of the matter, the petition was allowed and while setting aside the impugned endorsement, dated 17.09.2024, a direction was issued to conduct a fresh survey of the land situate in Sy.Nos.129 & 130 of Ongole Rural in Prakasam District. 3 HCJ & RC, J WA 215 2025 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that with a view to enable an effective survey and with a view to identify and demarcate the properties which have been purchased by the appellants, it would be apt to order a survey of even Sy.No.128. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K S Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein (petitioners in the writ petition) would submit that such a relief as prayed for by the appellants in the present appeal cannot be allowed inasmuch as a survey can be done only on the basis of an application filed in terms of the A.P Survey and Boundaries Act. It is also stated that upon such an application being made, the petitioners would be served with a notice in accordance with the said Act and would also have an opportunity to file objections to the same. It is stated that the methodology prescribed under the provisions of the A.P Survey and Boundaries Act cannot be short circuited through the medium of the present appeal when no such direction was ever prayed for or even suggested during the course of hearing of the writ petition. Although the appellants herein had sought a survey in regard to all the three survey numbers bearing 128, 129 & 130, learned Senior Counsel Mr. K S Murthy, would submit that in the application, copy whereof is also produced in the open Court which has been perused by us would suggest that the prayer made for survey was in fact only in regard to Sy.Nos. 129 & 130. 4 A HCJ & RC, J WA_215_2025 7. A copy of the receipt reflecting deposit of Rs. 1,500/- towards survey fee does reflect Sy.No.128 along with Sy.Nos.129 & 130, however Sy.No.128 appears to be more a matter of subsequent inclusion when read with the application filed by the appellants before the concerned authorities. 8. Be that as it may, we find some merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein that in case the appellants want a survey also to be conducted in Sy.No.128, they would be at liberty to file a specific application making a prayer in that regard upon payment of the requisite fee. 9. We find no merit in the present Writ Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri K. V. Raghu Veer, Advocate [OPUC] ^ 2. One CC to Mrs. Panguluru Rachana, Advocate [OPUC] '*^ Municipal Admn & Urban Development ofAndhra Pradesh. (OUT) PradSh^(OIJT)^°'^ Stamps & Registration, High Court ofAndhra^ 5. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC for Municipality (OPUC) 6. Three C.D. Copies. High Court Cnr HIGH COURT DATED;29/04/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.215 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS