* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1239/2025

%11.07.2025

# Pamidipati Bhagya Lakshmi.

……Petitioners

And:

$ K.Kanaka Durga & 49 others

….Respondents

!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior

counsel assisted by Sri V.Jagadish

^Counsel for the respondent :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3722

2. (2019) 20 SCC 143

3. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1239/2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 11.07.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No copy of the Judgment?

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI,J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1239/2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri V.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner in main LGOP.No.119 of 2012 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, being aggrieved from the order dated 08.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.1597 of 2024 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 10 herein (respondent Nos.1 to6, 17 to 20 in LGOP) for appointment of advocate commissioner by which the learned Court allowed I.A.No.1597 of 2024 and appointed the Advocate Commissioner.

3. The petitioner with respondent No.11 herein filed the LGOP.No.119 of 2012 against the respondent Nos.1 to 10 inter-alia on the ground that they had grabbed the petition schedule property and sought for the removal of the structure and also to punish those respondents under the provisions of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (in short Act, 1982).

4. The Thasildar of Vijayawada Urban submitted a report dated 22.03.2012 that on field verification it was found that those respondents had encroached the petition schedule land and raised the dwelling structures.

5. The respondent Nos.1 to 10 in their counter in LGOP.No.119 of 2012 denied the grabbing of the land and some of them set up independent title submitting to have purchased their respective site under the Registered sale deeds.

6. The trial commenced in LGOP. PW1 to 5 were examined. Some documents were also marked. After completion of the evidence of the petitioners, the LGOP was posted for further evidence of respondents and marking of documents and cross examination of R1. Since, respondent witness did not turn up to attend before the Court, the evidence on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6, 17 to 20 was treated as nil and LGOP was posted for the evidence of the other respondents fixing 20.11.2024.

7. The respondent Nos.1 to 10 filed I.A.No.1561 of 2024 to reopen their evidence and also filed I.A.No.1597 of 2024 to appoint advocate commissioner to note down physical features of their respective properties and fix the boundaries of NTS.No.6 basing on Ex.A3 sale deed.

8. The respondent Nos.1 to 10’s case (respondent Nos.1 to 6, 17 to 20 in LGOP) as set up in I.A.No.1597 of 2024 inter-alia is that their properties are not in NTS No.6 but are in NTS.Nos.3, 4 & 5 and they have valid registered sale deed(s) executed by their vendors. It was therefore just and necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner.

9. The said application was contested by the present petitioner by filing counter affidavit submitting inter-alia that the application for appointment of advocate commissioner was filed to drag on the proceedings of LGOP and was without any basis. The application was filed to collect evidence whereas the Advocate Commissioner could not be appointed for collection of evidence.

10. The learned Trial Court allowed I.A.No.1561 of 2024.

11. The learned Trial Court also allowed I.A.No.1597 of 2024 vide Order date