Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Sri Adapa Haranadha Babu - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Parvathareddy Sundaramani Balamani Kumari and others - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 1450 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025
For the Petitioner: Srinivas Karra.
For the Respondents: Anup Koushik Karavadi.
The appointment of a Commissioner is essential for resolving disputes over property ownership and waste material segregation, as per the Supreme Court's directions.
Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Appointment of Commissioner - The order dated 07.11.2023 appointing a Commissioner to segregate dump material was challenged by the 7th defendant, who argued that the appointment was unnecessary and amounted to gathering evidence. The Supreme Court had previously allowed the plaintiff to seek such an appointment. (Paras 1, 8, 10, 36)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that the role of a Commissioner is to assist in identifying physical features of the property, not to gather evidence. The appointment is necessary for fair adjudication of disputes regarding property ownership and waste material. (Paras 16, 20, 26)
(C)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of property used for dumping waste from a mining operation, while the 7th defendant contested the legality of the waste material's presence. (Paras 4, 5)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appointment of a Commissioner was justified to resolve disputes over the ownership and extent of the dump material. (Paras 36) (E)
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiff could maintain the application for a Commissioner and whether the appointment was justified based on the Supreme Court's observations. (Paras 13) (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appointment of a Commissioner was necessary for resolving factual disputes regarding the mining dump, aligning with the Supreme Court's directions. (Paras 20, 36) (G)
Result: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (Para 37)
ORDER :
2. The petitioner herein is the 7th defendant, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff, and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the defendants in the suit (during the pendency of the suit, the 6th defendant died, and the 7th defendant was impleaded as a party respondent as the legal heir of the 6th defendant, vide orders dated 02.05.2019 in I.A.No.547 of 2017).
3. The suit was filed seeking a declaration of title, permanent injunction, and to declare the proceedings dated 22.05.2010, granting a No Objection Certificate in favor of the 6th respondent/6th defendant is null and void. The suit also sought to declare the lease dated 27.05.2014, granted by the Government in favor of the 6th defendant and transferring of the said lease in favor of the 7th respondent by the Tahsildar, as illegal and arbitrary. For the purpose of this order, the parties as referred at Court below shall be followed.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.9.25 cents, having acquired the same vide registered sale deed dated 17.02.2001 from its rightful owner i.e., Pamidi Subbarathamma.
5. The suit schedule property has been utilized as a dumping yard for waste material accrued due to its quarrying operations of M/s. Anand Granite Exports Private Limited. In which the petitioner is also one of the director of the company and since then the waste material of the petitioner company has been dumping at subject place.
6. While so, the present I.A.No.1121 of 2017 in O.S.No.177 of 2014, seeking the appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property with the assistance of the Government Mandal Surveyor and note down the nature of the dump and its extent.
7. Initially, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.495 of 2014, seeking a temporary injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 6. The Court below passed an order on 05.08.2014, restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. The 6th defendant challenged this order by filing C.M.A.No.790 of 2014, which was allowed on 02.12.2014.
8. The petitioner then filed S.L.P. No. 778 of 2015 before the Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 02.12.2014. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. on 06.10.2017 and made the following observations:
“…..it is open to the plaintiff to move the trial court for appointment of commissioner for segregating the waste material mined by the petitioner herself from the rest of the what is otherewise there in the suit schedule property. It is also further observed that all the contentions are left open to both the parties.”
9. In view of the categorical observation and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.10.2017, the plaintiff filed this application seeking for appointment of advocate commissioner to inspect the suit locality and note down the nature of dumping.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.778 of 2015, dated 06.10.2017, and was only to move the Trial Court to appoint a commissioner, in order to segregate whatever has been allegedly dumped by the petitioner from the rest of the what is otherwise there in the property.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present interlocutory application for the appointment of a commissioner was filed based on the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, there is no value to the waste material dumped in the suit schedule property.
12. In that case, the Commissioner can be appointed to segregate the waste material from the mining land. He further submits that if the su
