This court dismissed a civil revision under Article 226 challenging an order allowing a petitioner-gram panchayat to appoint an advocate-commissioner. The court held that the remedy for an unfavorable prior report is to have it eschewed from the file with evidence, not to appoint a fresh commissioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3034 OF 2008
DATE:18-02-2011
BETWEEN
The Gram Panchayat, Avanigadda, Rep. by its Executive Officer Yakkati Veenadevi (Died) & others
AND
…Petitioner
…Respondents
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3034 OF 2008
ORDER:
Petitioner-defendant filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the dismissal order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in I.A.No.1326 of 2007 in O.S.No.69 of 1999, dated 26.3.2008.
Plaintiffs-respondents herein filed the above suit against the petitioner-gram panchayat for permanent injunction, in which, they filed I.A.No.1142 of 2001 for appointment of an advocate-commissioner. On allowing the said I.A., the advocate-commissioner inspected the
suit locality and filed his report on 15.3.2005. When the said advocate-commissioner measured the suit schedule property in the presence of both the counsel and parties, no objection has been raised as to the manner in which the commissioner has executed the warrant as per the work memos, if any, filed. Thereafter, the defendant gram panchayat-petitioner herein filed I.A.No.362 of 2006 to appoint an advocate-commissioner and the same was inadvertently allowed by the lower Court on 8.9.2006 since when the earlier commissioner’s report is already on file, unless the said report is eschewed, no fresh commissioner can be appointed. The advocate-commissioner, who was appointed in I.A.No.362 of 2006, returned the warrant and therefore, another advocate-commissioner was appointed on 13.03.2007, who also returned the warrant on 14.11.2007 sating that both the parties are not cooperating with him. This itself shows that the petitioner-gram panchayat itself was not cooperating with the advocate-commissioner, who was appointed at its instance. Now, the petitioner-gram panchayat filed the present impugned I.A. for the very same purpose for appointing another advocate-commissioner to demarcate the boundary of R.S.No.294/3 and 294/4 of Avanigadda with reference to intact survey stones with the help of District Surveyor with reference to F.M.B, and to note in which survey number ABFGH and CDEF passage of plaint plan lies as per F.M.B., and draw a sketch with reference to measurements. It shows that the earlier report filed by the commissioner is not favourable to the petitionergram panchayat. If that be the case, proper remedy for the petitioner is to see that the report is eschewed from the file and for the same, the petitioner has to plead necessary evidence to the said effect and only after the said report is eschewed, the Court can appoint another commissioner.
In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this
Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
_______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 18, 2011 Tsr.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the lower court's order granting the petitioner-gram panchayat's application to appoint an advocate-commissioner for boundary demarcation.
The Gram Panchayat, Avanigadda, Rep. by its Executive Officer Yakkati Veenadevi (Died) & others
Plaintiffs
A. GOPAL REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
