The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is mandated when property title disputes arise, aiding in elucidating issues during judgment.

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P.(PD)No.4958 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.27918 of 2024 R.Bakthavatchalam .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Kancheepuram, having office at Kancheepuram District.

2.The Tahsildhar, Madurantagam, Having office at Madurantagam Town & Taluk Kancheepuram District.

3.The National Highway Authority of India, having office at No.1/54, 28, Butt Road, Sri Towers, SP Industrial Area, Near Kathipara Junction, Chennai.

4.The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)

National Highway-45, Kancheepuram. .. Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 01.10.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.72 of 2018 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Madurantagam.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For RR1, 2 & 4 : Mr.M.Murali, Govt. Adv.

For R3 : Mrs.S.R.Sumathi

O R D E R

This civil revision petition arises against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge at Madurantagam in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.72 of

2018, dated 01.10.2024.

2. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in the suit. O.S.No.72 of 2018 has been presented for a declaration of title that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule mentioned property and for delivery of possession of “B” schedule property.

3.It is the case of the plaintiff that entire extent of his properties was about 15 cents. He claims to be the owner of the said property by virtue of purchase made by him on 11.11.1983. He pleads that the defendants had acquired 12 cents of the 15 cents leaving aside 3 cents for which he continues to be the owner. When he was attempting to put up a construction over 3 cents, which had not been acquired, his possession was interfered with. Hence, the suit for the aforesaid reliefs. Written statements have been presented by all the parties.

4. The plaintiff took out an application in I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit schedule mentioned property along with the help of the surveyor and to submit a report. This application was resisted by the National Highways Authorities of India stating that the suit is at the stage of trial and that the acquisition itself was based on the revenue records that have been maintained by respondents 1, 2 & 4. Hence, there is no necessity for a surveyor to survey “A” or “B” schedule mentioned property.

5. The submission of the National Highways Authorities of India persuaded the learned Trial Judge to dismiss the application. Hence, this revision.

6.When the matter came up for admission, I asked Mr.K.Govi Ganesan to serve the entire papers on Mr.M.Murali and Mrs.S.R.Sumathi, the respective standing counsel for defendants 1, 2 & 4 and 3. Papers have been served and I took up the matter for final disposal.

7. I heard the submissions of the respective counsel and I have gone through the entire records.

8. The long and short of the case of the plaintiff is that he was the owner of 15 cents. Out of 15 cents, 12 cents were acquired. Therefore, the remaining 3 cents continue to belong to him. He pleads that he wants to put up a construction over the 3 cents and since the property had been taken over by the defendants, he came forward with the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

9.It is the case of the 3^rd defendant that they have acquired the lands for the purpose of laying the National Highway, only after the survey had been conducted by the revenue authorities. The National Highways Authority pleads that the records are unimpeachable and therefore, no C