THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO I.A. No.2 of 2025 in W.P. No.25968 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the inaction of the respondents 2 to 4, is as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, in conducting survey, demarcation and fixing boundaries in respect for petitioner’s agricultural property in Sy.No.315/3 to an extent of Ac. 4.37 cents situated at Rajampeta village and Mandal despite the F-Line application filed in Meeseva dated 22.05.2025 and on 22.07.2025. 2. This court vide order dated 23.09.2025 has disposed the said writ petition directing the respondents to conduct a survey, sub-division and fix the boundaries after issuing notices to the affected parties fixing while also setting a time limit for the completion of the survey. 3. This Interlocutory application No.2 of 2025 is filed seeking to review the order dated 23.09.2025 in W.P. No.25968 of 2025. This Court granted leave to file review in I.A. No.3 of 2025. Hence, the present application is taken up for consideration. 4. The review petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner previously filed a writ vide W.P. No.19912 of 2020 and the same was disposed of on dated 12.03.2024 directing the parties to file a civil suit. Pursuant to the direction, a civil suit was filed on the file of Junior Civil Judge Rajampeta, and the suit is pending for adjudication regarding the same subject property i.e., to an extent of land Ac. 4.37 cents, in Sy.No.315/3, situated in Rajampeta Village and Mandal. The review petitioner contends that the present writ petition has been filed without disclosing the pending civil suit filed in pursuance of the direction of this Court and obtained an order without the review petitioner's knowledge. Therefore, the review petitioner requests to review the order dated 23.09.2025 5. This Court has disposed of the writ petitioner W.P. No.19912 of 2020. For the benefit and effective disposal relevant portion of the order in W.P. No.19912 of 2020 extracted read is as follows: 2 Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that both the writ petitioner and review petitioners are claiming rights over the same property basing on DKT pattas issued by the revenue department and both are disputing the DKT pattas, therefore it would be appropriate to relegate both parties to civil court. Counsel appearing for 3rd Party Review Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader also agreed for the same. It is well settled that in proceedings under Article of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not adjudicate, upon affidavits when disputed questions of fact are involved. When the parties raises questions of fact of complex nature, such as in the present case, the High Court should be loath in entertaining such disputed facts and instead must relegate the parties to remedy of a civil suit which may for their determination require oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the party concerned and also because the relief sought is merely for ordering injunction. In the review petition, admittedly disputable facts are involved, the High Court may not be justified in examining the claim of the writ petitioner in the writ petition. In the present case, according to learned counsel appearing for the 3rd party review petitioner, who is claiming that she is the owner of the property in question basing upon the DKT patta and the revenue record. Whereas the writ petitioner also claiming the property basing on the DKT patta was issued in his favour denying the DKT patta issued in favour of the 3rd party review petitioner on the ground that they are all fabricated documents. Thus, both the parties are claiming their rights in respect of the immovable property and the same has to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court based on the oral and documentary evidence and this Court cannot adjudicate the disputed question of facts, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. And the Civil Court shall decide the case strictly 3 based on the oral and documentary evidence to be adduced and produced by both the parties and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. And goes without saying that the 4th respondent is hereby directed not to change the writ petitioner name from the web land till a finding arrived by the civil court as the name of writ petitioner was incorporated by virtue of the direction of this court. In the event of a civil suit, the court is instructed to resolve the dispute without imposing a name that is incorporated in the website. 6. Now the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would stated that as directed by this Court in W.P.No.25968 of 2025, a survey was conducted on 24.11.2025. If the review petitioner is aggrieved or has any grievance, the review petitioner must file an appeal as provided under Section 11 of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. 7. The review petitioner’s counsel states that the review petitioner is in possession of the property and is concerned about potential interference from the writ petitioner, hence, seeking protection from this Court till pursuance of the appeal remedy, under Section 11 of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. 8. In the case of Manthena Praveen Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh in WA.No.819 of 2024 decided on 09.05.2025, a Division Bench of this Court held that while the applicant may claim a right to apply for demarcation, the authority concerned has an obligation to determine as to whether the claim made by such an applicant is based upon a substantive right or is he/she a stranger to the property. Basing upon the B.S.O.34-A rule 20. The same is extracted. <While Rule 20 of B.S.O.34-A provides for applications to be made for conduct of survey of private lands, the language of the Rule, extracted above, would indicate that such applications can only be by persons in relation to land owned by them. On this basis, these provisions cannot be stretched to mean that a survey could be conducted where the applicant is not able to demonstrate a clear claim over the said land. It is clear that no 4 stranger can seek survey of private lands or for demarcation of the fields.= 9. There is a disagreement over the title between the writ petitioner and the review petitioner. The writ petitioner did not disclose the existence of W.P. No. 19912 of 2020 when filing the current W.P. No.25968 of 2025. As a result, the order dated 23.09.2025 issued in W.P. 25968 of 2025, is recalled. The review petitioner is instructed to submit an appeal under Section 11 of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. The appellate authority is required to consider the appeal, and any application for a stay or to suspend the survey conducted on 24.02.2025 should be handled as quickly as possible upon the appeal's submission. Meanwhile, the writ petitioner is instructed not to interfere with the review petitioner's possession. 10. Admittedly, there is dispute regarding the title between the writ petitioner and the review petitioner. The petitioner not discloses the existence of W.P.No. 19912 of 2020 and suppressed the fact of filed the present writ petition. As a result, obtained an order dated 23.09.2025 in W.P. 25968 of 2025, hence it is recalled, and the review petitioner is hereby directed to file an appeal under Section 11 of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, within a period of three (3) weeks from date of receipt of this order and on filing of appeal, the appellate authority is directed to consider the stay application or for any direction or to suspend the survey conducted on 24.11.2025 and the same should be handled as expeditiously as possible pending disposal of the appeal. Meanwhile the writ petitioner is directed to maintain status quo as on today with regard to possession of the review petitioner of the subject property of the writ petition till the disposal of the application by the appellate authority. 11. Accordingly, the review I.A. No.2 of 2023 is stands disposed of. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Pmk/Harin