APHC010596332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1168 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-1 [3446] K Satya Sudha @ Devireddy Vaiyusatha @ Devireddy Vasithamma ...Appellant Vs. Daggumati Sreedhar Rao and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Ram Babu Devavarapu Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. V Surendra Reddy, Mr. Bomminayuni Apparao, GP for Revenue, Mr. A S C Bose (SC for Municipal Corporations) CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 13th November, 2025 Per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ (Oral) : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 31.10.2025 passed in IA.No.1 of 2025 in WP.No.30016 of 2025. 2. The learned single Judge by virtue of the order impugned has directed respondent Nos.3 to 8 in the writ petition to conduct a joint survey of 2 HCJ & RRR, J WA_1168_2025 the property in accordance with the documents submitted by both the parties and further to demarcate the boundaries. While ordering so, the learned single Judge, however, made it clear that the said survey report would not be utilized for determining the title over the subject property and that the survey would be conducted only to determine the extent of land and determine the boundaries of the properties. 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant states that such a direction is unsustainable in law inasmuch as there is a serious dispute raised by the appellant regarding the genuineness of the documents based upon which the petitioner was seeking survey of the properties. Reference in this regard was made to an order, dated 03.08.2023 passed by the District Registrar of Assurances, Nellore, wherein the documents mentioned therein and stated by senior counsel for the appellant to be the same on the basis of which the demarcation is sought, were held to be fake. 4. While it may not be proper for us to go into detail as to in what circumstances the documents were declared as fake, may be because of the absence of the executants of special power of attorney as can be seen from the said order, yet, reference in any case was made in this regard by learned senior counsel for the appellant to the said document. 3 HCJ & RRR, J WA_1168_2025 5. For the moment, we do not wish to comment upon the genuineness or otherwise of the documents concerned in these proceedings inasmuch as even the learned single Judge in the order impugned has not made any comment on the same. 6. We are informed that there is a special procedure prescribed under Board Standing Order 34-A and to be precise Rule 20 of BSO 34-A, which provides that the applications from private parties to point out the boundaries of their fields in accordance with the survey records may be received by the Taluk Tahsildar. 7. This issue incidentally was also considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us [Justice R Raghunandan Rao] is a member, in Manthena Praveen Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh [WA.No.819 of 2024 decided on 09.05.2025]. The Division Bench on a conspectus of various judgments on the issue in paragraph 16 had observed as under: “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 made 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 stranger can seek survey of private lands or for demarcation of the fields.” 4 HCJ & RRR, J WA_1168_2025 8. Considering the view already taken on a consideration of various provisions dealing with the right of an individual to seek survey of his/her property, it is clear 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. 9. While the learned single Judge has issued directions ordering a survey to be conducted for demarcation of the boundaries, it has in a way taken away the right of the authority concerned to deal with the issue. 10. It is not out of place here to mention that in case the Taluk Tahsildar proceeds to reject the claim of an applicant to have the survey conducted, there is also an appeal provided before the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to allow the authorities in the first instance to go into the entire issue as to the entitlement of the applicant-petitioner to have the land surveyed. In case the application is rejected, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the appellate forum i.e., the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Records which is constituted as the appellate authority in terms of the Circular vide Circular Rc.No.N1/6543/99, dated 25.07.2001. 5 HCJ & RRR, J WA_1168_2025 12. In our opinion, the direction of the learned single Judge to the Taluk Tahsildar to conduct a survey would in effect take away the jurisdiction of the Taluk Tahsildar to decide as to whether the application is at all to be entertained or not. Be that as it may, we allow the present writ appeal. The order impugned passed in IA.No.1 of 2025 in WP.No.30016 of 2025 is set aside. We direct the consideration of the application filed by the petitioner by the concerned Taluk Tahsildar preferably within a period of two weeks from today. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Note: Issue CC today. B/o Vjl