The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that a litigant contending that she is the owner of a portion of land, by registered sale deeds, is entitled to make a request for the conduct of a survey to point out the boundaries of her land.

The appellant had approached the High Court challenging the order of a Single Judge whereby it was held that a survey of the properties could be conducted.

The Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice B V L N Chakravarthi observed, “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.”

“In the present case, the 6th respondent contends that she is the owner of Ac.2.00 of land, by virtue of registered deeds of sale. In such circumstances, the 6th respondent can make a request for conduct of survey for pointing out the boundaries of her land, in accordance with the survey records”, it added.

Advocate Jami Madhavi represented the Appellant while GP represented the Revenue.

Factual Background

The appellant claimed ownership and possession of two extents of land. These lands were purchased by the appellant by way of a deed of sale in 2007. The appellant approached the the Court with the complaint that the Deputy Inspector of Survey, in the office of the District Collector, Machilipatnam, had pasted a notice informing the appellant that a survey of the land would have to be conducted at the behest of the private respondent, under the provisions of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (1923 Act).

The unofficial respondent complained that she is the owner of about Ac.2.00 of land, which was in the illegal possession of the appellant, and that the appellant should be evicted from this land and the same should be handed over to the unofficial respondent, after due survey. A Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that it would only be appropriate that a survey be conducted in as much as the unofficial respondent was also claiming title through a deed of sale, and only a survey could resolve the issue. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the question of whether a survey could be conducted under the provisions of the 1923 Act came up in the case of Rachakonda Nagaiah vs Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2013) wherein the Division Bench had noticed that the Government had issued various circulars based on Board Standing Order No. 34-A as well as another circular wherein instructions were issued for conduct of survey at the request made by parties. The Division Bench had held therein that, given the circular, a survey of lands can be done at the request of private parties. The Division Bench had also directed that the survey was to be conducted as per the circular instructions/guidelines/Board Standing Orders issued by the Government. “The subsequent Judgments continue to direct the conduct of survey”, the Bench held.

The Bench referred to B.S.O. No.31, which relates to the transfer of holdings in the register of holdings. The B.S.O., after recognising these categories of transfer, also provides for applications to be made for necessary changes in the register of holdings and the Revenue Records. This B.S.O. also envisages subdivisions arising out of such transfers. It was further noted that Rule 10 of B.S.O.34-A provides for the creation of subdivisions or new survey fields under Rule 10 (1).

“These provisions of the B.S.O. indicate that, whenever there is a transfer of ownership, by any of the methods described above, the entries in the register of holdings are to be altered accordingly. Before such alterations, the land in question would have to be demarcated, on the ground, by way of a subdivision of the survey number, so as to indicate the extent of land which is now with the transferee. This is done by identifying and specifying the fields which would comprise the demarcated area”, the Bench said.

While disposing of the Petition, the Bench also held, “The question of handing over possession of the land by the Revenue Authorities to the 6th respondent would not arise as the scope of any survey that can be conducted is restricted to pointing out the F-Lines or the sub division boundaries. The Revenue Authorities cannot interfere in civil disputes to hand over possession of lands. For such purpose, the parties would have to approach the appropriate Civil Court.”

Cause Title: Manthena Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others (Case No.: WRIT APPEAL NO: 819/2024)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Jami Madhavi

Respondent: GP, Amicus Curiae, S Lakshminarayana Reddy, K V Aditya Chowdary

Click here to read/download Order


Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice R. Raghunandan RaoJustice B.V.L.N Chakravarthi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.