Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court, in V Rajendran vs Annasamy Pandian, has held that the defect in the survey number of the suit property will constitute to be a “formal defect” within the meaning of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) (a) of Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs, in the instant case, had filed the suit describing the suit property as Survey No.192/9 but the respondents are said to have transferred the patta for the suit property settling as Survey No.192/14. The application for withdrawal of the suit in terms of Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) CPC was allowed. But the high court reversed the said order of trial court. The plaintiffs approached apex court.

Justice MS Ramachandra Rao of the Hyderabad High Court has ruled that the officials of survey department are bound to conduct survey of private land if anyone makes such a request after paying the required charges. Authorities cannot deny this facility to people citing provisions of the AP Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, he said, in his judgement pronounced in a case filed by M Padmavathy of East Godavari district. The petitioner challenged the denial of the survey officials in conducting survey of her land and also to demarcate the boundaries. The officials were citing the provisions of the Survey Act which did not ask them anywhere to conduct survey of private land. The judge in his order pointed out that the Act, at the same time, did not say anywhere that they should not do it. Just as experts in DNA analysis, ballistics and handwriting are extending their expertise to private persons even when they are working with the government, the experts of survey wing too must extend th...