The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.663 of 2025

Order

This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioners/respondents aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial in I.A.No.448 of 2024 in O.S.No.16 of 2023, wherein a petition filed by the respondents/petitioners under Order 26, Rule 9 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the land in Sy.No.154 or 156, note down the physical features as well as its location to ascertain the suit survey number with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, has been allowed.

2. Heard Sri Sathvik Makunur, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/respondents/defendants and Sri K. Shanthan Rao, learned counsel for respondents/petitioners/ plaintiffs. Perused the record.

3. The respondents herein filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to land in Sy.No.154 having VLT H.No.1-5- 203/79/1 admeasuring 818 sq.yds., situated at Ganeshnagar locality of Jagtial Town and District. The petitioners in their written statement pleaded that the suit land is situated in Sy.No.156 and is not part and parcel of Sy.No.154 and that they are not aware of the report given by the Mandal surveyor stating that the land comes under Sy.No.156 and no notice of survey is given to them by the Mandal Surveyor when the survey was conducted. Further, it is contended that the subject land is house site but not agricultural land. The petitioners filed counter alleging that the Mandal Surveyor on the direction of the District Collector submitted a report that the land comes under Sy.No.156. The respondents filed a petition on 08.12.2019 before the Collector, Jagtial in Prajawani, and in turn, the Collector communicated the same to the Commissioner, Municipality, Jagtial and after the directions from the Collector, the Commissioner, Municipality instructed the Town Planning Section (TPS) of Jagtial Municipality, wherein, TPS went to the site under dispute on behalf of site owners and in the presence of both parties, the TPS stopped the construction work at plinth level. The respondents requested the District Collector to direct the Surveyor to conduct the survey for identification of the survey number of disputed land. The respondent No.2 filed building permission application on 07.11.2019 online and verification and inspection was done regarding the ownership documents, link documents and boundaries as per the documents and site. An objection was raised by the respondents and therefore, the building application was returned. The respondents filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.26040 of 2019 before this Court for inaction of the Commissioner, Jagtial Municipality on their objection petition dated 08.11.2019. To prove their contention, the petitioners have called for the report of the Mandal Surveyor. The Mandal Surveyor report and its sketch map reveal that the suit schedule property is located in Sy.No.156 which belongs to the petitioners herein. The respondents are aware of the Mandal Surveyor report and therefore, claimed that the petition under revision is not maintainable.

4. Upon examining the case of both parties, the learned Trial Court allowed the petition appointing Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to identify location of suit schedule property with respect to survey number, as such, the present Revision Petition is filed.

5. In grounds of revision, the petitioners contended that there was already a survey conducted at the behest of the District Collector to determine the identity of the same property and said report was furnished to the respondents, however, said aspect has not been dealt by the Trial Court. Further, it is contended that it is well settled legal position that an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC cannot be used to collect or generate fresh evidence in their favour. The Trial Court did not consider its own order dated 18.1