APHC010475352026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26197/2026 Between: 1. MITTA SANJEEVA REDDY, S/O MITTA PEDDI REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT D.NO. 38/11, MITTAVANDLAPALLE, N.R. PALLI POST, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2. MITTA GEETHA VANI,, W/O LATE MITTA VEERA NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 43/64-A, MITTAVANDLAPALLE, N.R. PALLI POST, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. MITTA NEHAREDDY,, D/O LATE VEERA NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 43/64- A, MITTAVANDLAPALLE, N.R. PALLI POST, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. MITTA POORNIMA REDDY,, D/O LATE VEERA NAGI REDDY AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 43/64- A, MITTAVANDLAPALLE, N.R. PALLI POST, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522238. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ERSTWHILE Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT-516269. Page 2 of 4 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT 516269. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTY REVENUE DIVISION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ERSTWHILE Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT-516269. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT- 516269. 6. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT-516269. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT-516269. 7. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, RAYACHOTY VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT-516269. 8. MALREDDY MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S/O VEERA SUBBA REDDY AGED 50 YEARS, THAPPELLA VILLAGE, YERRAGUNTIA MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT-516309. 9. PALEM PAVAN KUMAR REDDY, S/O KETHI REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC REAL ESTATE, KADAPA CITY, KADAPA DISTRICT-516001. 10. MITTA SREENIVASULU, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, VEMPALLI TOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT-516329. 11. PULI DHANALAKSHMI, W/O SREENIVASULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, CHANDRAMAKULAPALLI, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517247 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the Notice dated 22.07.2026 issued by Respondents 5 to 7 as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio, colourable exercise of statutory power, violation of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and violative of the Joint Collectors order dated 13.11.2015, and consequently set aside the said Notice and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the operation of the Notice dated 22.07.2026 issued by Respondents 5 to 7 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents 1 to 7. Notice in respect of respondents 8 to 11 is dispensed with, since no adverse order is passed affecting their rights and interests. 2. Assailing the notice in Form-10 (Ex.P1) issued by the 5th respondent, informing the petitioners and unofficial respondents intending to conduct a survey, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondents 8 to 11 made an application to conduct a survey and fix the boundaries, in relation to land in S.No.892/2, 893, 881, 884, 899, 896, 879 and 880 of Rayachoti village & Mandal. He would submit that respondents 8 to 11 have right and title to the property. The petitioners sent their objections through their advocate vide Exs.P4 and P6. Without considering the objections, the authority intended to proceed with the survey. 4. Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 7, on instructions, would submit that the authority will consider the objections of the petitioners before proceeding to survey the land mentioned in Ex.P1 notice. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in Manthena Praveen Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1, observed thus: “16. 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.” 6. Given the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the 4th respondent-Tahsildar shall consider the objections raised by the petitioners in proper perspective. If the authority is satisfied regarding the title of the applicant, the authority shall follow due procedure as per law. Till objections are filed and considered, the respondent-authorities shall not proceed with survey. The authority shall not construe the order as if this Court restrained the authority from conducting survey. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD 1 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1943