first report. As the Mandal Surveyor has admittedly not executed the warrant in the presence of the plaintiff or her counsel, and the notice was issued by the Mandal Surveyor, not the plaintiffs’ counsel, but in the name of a wrong person, the direction contained in the warrant that the same shall be executed after prior notice to the parties, is not complied with. The Mandal Surveyor ought to have issued notice to the plaintiff and to her counsel and executed the warrant in their presence as directed. The plaintiff was deprived of opportunity of furnishing any work memo also to the Mandal Surveyor. The Mandal Surveyor was himself appointed as a Commissioner and he was not assisting any advocate-Commissioner. As the respondents have stated no objection for appointment of a senior Advocate as a Commissioner and survey the disputed property with the assistance of a District Surveyor, the trial Court ought to have granted the said relief. The observation of the trial Court that appointment of a fresh Commissioner may amount to setting at naught the orders of this Court, confirming the appointment of Mandal Survey, is misconceived because what was confirmed earlier by this Court was only appointment of Mandal Surveyor and when the said Surveyor has not complied with the directions contained in the warrant, the report filed by him stands vitiated. The earlier order of this Court, confirming appointment of Mandal Surveyor, does not come in the way of scrapping the report filed by the Mandal Surveyor and appointing a fresh advocateCommissioner.
