APHC010180222026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 377 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-32 [3552] Adarsh Joshi, Flat No.2A, Brundavan Apartment, Pandurangapuram, Visakhapatnam District. ...Appellant Vs. Pentakota Seetha Ramanjaneyulu, Visakhapatnam and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Sri N.Subba Rao, learned senior counsel, representing Mr.DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): MR.JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA; GP FOR REVENUE, MR.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP), GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 7th April 2026 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present intra-Court appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 18.03.2026, passed in W.P.No.5401 of 2026. By aforesaid order, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent Nos.5 and 6 to conduct joint survey with the aid of Town Surveyor in 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.377 of 2026 pursuance to the writ petitioner’s/1st respondent herein, applications, dated 18.08.2025 and 25.08.2025, after notice to the appellant and as well as any other stakeholders by following the procedure contemplated under law. 2. (a) 1st respondent herein instituted the writ petition, claiming to be absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 1595 sq. yards in T.S.No.1008/3A-1 (Part of T.S.No.1008), Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam, which was bequeathed to him by his grandfather by virtue of Will, dated 10.03.1984. The 1st respondent’s grandfather, in turn, stated to have acquired aforesaid property through registered sale deed, vide Document No.2116 of 1959, dated 30.06.1959, from Smt.Rani Rukmini Devi and others. It is stated that, as per revenue records, T.S.Nos.1008, 1009 and 1011 are parallel town survey numbers. (b) The appellant – 7th respondent in the writ petition, stated to have fabricated and created forged and sham sale deeds bearing Document Nos.1633 of 2023 and 5473 of 2023, dated 22.02.2023 and 14.06.2023, respectively, by projecting his property as part and falling within T.S.No.1011 and in pursuance to the said documents, he had also secured Building Permit No.1086/2022/B/Z3/PAM/2023, dated 25.07.2023, from 6th respondent herein for construction of hotel. As the said act amounted to encroaching upon writ petitioner’s property in 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.377 of 2026 T.S.No.1008, he approached the Commissioner, G.V.M.C., Visakhapatnam-6th respondent herein, vide application dated 18.08.2025, followed by yet another application, dated 25.08.2025, requesting for conducting joint survey over subject land and to make physical demarcation as per the revenue records and consequently, to cancel the Building Permit, dated 25.07.2025. (c) Though initially, the Commissioner, GVMC, had called for the supporting documents substantiating the title and right over subject property, despite the appellant’s replying to the same, vide letter, dated 08.01.2026, no action came to be initiated. In the aforesaid background, writ petition came to be preferred questioning the inaction of official respondents in conducting joint survey and physical demarcation of subject lands with reference to the original Field Measurement Book and consequently, to restrain the appellant herein from interfering with writ petitioner’s peaceful possession over subject property and also from carrying on any construction over subject property in pursuance to the Building Permit, dated 25.07.2025, so granted. 3. The learned Single Judge, based on written instructions of the Commissioner, GVMC, that necessary steps are being taken for conducting joint survey, disposed of the writ petition, directing the Commissioner and Zonal Commissioners of GVMC to ensure that joint 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.377 of 2026 survey be conducted by Town Surveyors within four weeks from the date of passing of the order. Further, the Town Surveyor to issue advance notice to the writ petitioner, as well as the unofficial respondent No.7 – appellant herein and also to any other stakeholders, conveying the time and date of proposed joint survey. Further, it was directed that the survey be conducted in adherence to the principles of natural justice after considering all the documents and submissions of interested parties, and thereupon, to finalise the survey report and submit the copies thereof to all the stakeholders. It was also made clear that any further construction being made in the subject property falling in aforesaid survey numbers shall be at the risk and costs of the respective parties and that they shall not claim any equities. Assailing the same, the present Writ Appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Javvadi Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for GVMC, appearing for official respondents. 5. (a) Learned Senior Counsel Sri N.Subba Rao, appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the judgment and order passed 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.377 of 2026 by the learned Single Judge suffers from severe infirmities, inasmuch as, when there is serious dispute regarding title and also the localisation of subject property, which according to the writ petitioner fall within T.S.No.1008, but not in T.S.No.1011, appropriate remedy would be to work out remedies by approaching the competent Civil Court, but not to conduct joint survey, in a way making roaring enquiry in regard to the disputed property. (b) He further contended that all the documents i.e., sale deed, dated 30.06.1959, through which, writ petitioner’s grandfather stated to have acquired the property; Will, dated 10.03.1984, stated to have been executed in favour of 1st respondent, do not refer to Survey No.1008 and that as per the documents relied on by the appellant, the construction is being carried out in Survey No.1011, which is distinct and separate, therefore, question of directing joint survey would not enure to anybody’s benefit. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the photographs filed along with the appeal, to contend that the constructions carried on over subject property were at advanced stage, as almost five floors have already been erected in pursuance to the Building Permit, dated 25.07.2023, therefore, urge that the learned Single Judge fell in error in directing to conduct joint survey. 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.377 of 2026 (c) Learned Senior Counsel also contended that the entire land falling within T.S.Nos.1008, 1009 and 1011, had earlier came to be surveyed at the instance of the Government for the purpose of acquiring part of the land and the said survey was undertaken after due notice to the all parties concerned and ultimately, report came to be prepared way back in the year 2018 itself, for which, even the vendors of the appellant were parties, therefore, question of conducting a joint survey once again would be a repetitive exercise and in fact, the writ petitioner had already chose to file O.S.No.598 of 2025 before the Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, which later came to be withdrawn, therefore, urge to dismiss the writ petition by allowing the present appeal. 6. Sri Javvadi Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for 1st respondent/ writ petitioner, on the other hand, tried to support the order of the learned Single Judge. He contended that the applications seeking for joint survey were made in accordance with Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short, “the Act”), therefore, the official respondents were under obligation to conduct joint survey. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has merely passed an innocuous order directing official respondents to conduct joint survey by following due process of law, which cannot be found fault with. 7 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.377 of 2026 7. Even Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for GVMC, and as well as learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for official respondents, supported the order of the learned Single Judge. 8. We have gone through the order of the learned Single Judge and considered the submissions of respective counsels. 9. The appellant, claiming to be the absolute owner and possessor of subject property falling in T.S.No.1011, stated to have obtained Building Permit, dated 25.07.2023, from the Commissioner, GVMC, for construction of a multi-storeyed building and that already five slabs have been laid, and brick work and other interior works are in progress. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner also claims that the very same property where the constructions are being undertaken by the appellant belongs to him by virtue of Will, dated 10.03.1984, falling in T.S.No.1008, therefore, made applications, dated 25.08.2025 and 18.08.2025, seeking for joint survey for physical demarcation of lands in T.S.Nos.1009, 1009 and 1011. The learned Single Judge, considering the respective pleas, has ordered for joint survey to be conducted by Town Surveyor in the presence of both parties and as well as other stakeholders. 10. Though learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned 8 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.377 of 2026 Single Judge was not right in directing joint survey to be conducted, particularly when title to the subject property was seriously in dispute between the parties, we are not impressed with aforesaid submission. Reason being that the impugned order merely directs a joint survey to be conducted based on the documents to be relied on by respective parties by following principles of natural justice and after considering the objections of the parties concerned to prepare a final report and furnish the same, which in no manner either decide the title or rights of the parties and ultimately based on the said report, it is for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, who sought for such joint survey, to work out his remedies by approaching appropriate forum. 11. The joint survey of T.S.Nos.1008, 1009 and 1011 merely postulates the earmarking of total extent of land falling in respective survey numbers and incidentally the land, which is subject matter of controversy as well. Merely because the 1st respondent/writ petitioner chose to file a Suit and later withdrew the same and approached the official respondents for conducting joint survey, the request so made cannot be rejected when the provisions of the Act provide for one to seek survey even if there were to be some disputes over the subject property. Similarly, even if the Government had on earlier occasion undertaken the exercise of survey over T.S.Nos.1008, 1009 and 1011, the same would not debar or preclude the 1st respondent in approaching 9 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.377 of 2026 the official respondents for yet another survey. The scope and purpose of earlier survey and the one sought to be done now would be at variance, hence, it cannot be said that the exercise would be repetitive. Further, we are of the view that mere conducting of joint survey in no manner would determine the rights of the parties, in particular, 1st respondent, who made such application, qua the subject property, and ultimately, it is the competent Civil Court, which has to adjudicate the title to the property, if in case one tries to assert the same. 12. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs