This bench dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an appellate court order that denied an application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The court held that noting physical features was irrelevant to the core dispute regarding property title and illegal occupation.
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR oF rE LA NG A NA o r,
"orl^.o?r#E
[9]^D1YrHE SEVENTHDAYoFJUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL R EVISION P ETITION NO: 135 1 0F 2020
Petition under Article 227 ol the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the impugned orders passed ln 1.A.No.327 of 2018 in A.S.No.i99 of 2017 , dated. 06 11 2020 on the fire of the court of the , Additionar District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad, at lr,4ancheriat
Between:
Bejanki Narsimha chary, s/o Late Venkatanatnam, Aged 56 years, occ. Gord Smith R/o 11 No 13-275. IB Ai.ea, Manahe;i;t, [,4;;.nCiui'oir"tri.t.
... Revision Petitioner/petitioner/Appellant
AND
... Res ponde nts/Respondents/Respondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleasedto grant interim stay of all further proceedings in A.S.No.1ggof 2017on the file of the ll Additional Districtand Sessions Judge(FTC), Adilabad,at Mancherial pending disposalof the abovecivil Revision Petition
Counsel for thePetitioner:SRI C, VIKRAM CHANDRA
Counsel for theRespondent Nos'1,2, 4' and5: NONEAPPEARED
Counsel for theRespondents: M/s J SREENIVASA RAO
The Court made thefollowing:ORDER
//
I
.tHE HON'ItLtr SRI JUSTICE CHALLAKODANDAI1AM lo f 2020 CI\IILITEVISIONI'I.-TIT IONNo. 135
Oltl)hlt:
Pctitiotrcrlllcd O S'No242 ol'201 3 against rcspouclcnlslbr perpelual injunctionwith respectto house plotadn'rcasuring29I sq.yards coveredby SurveyNo'23 situated at Teegalpahad Village, R/mMancherial,and for declarationof title and recol'ery of possessionto an extent of 16 sq'yardsby dismantlingthe temporary structure illegallyraised in it by respondent No'3' The said suit was dismissed.Challenging the said judgment, he filed A.S.No.199 of 2017 in theCourt of II AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge(FTC), Adilabadat Mar.rcherial. ln the said appeal, he tlled 1.A.No.327 of2018 seeking to appoint Aclr"ocate' Comrnissioner to note down thephysicalf'eattrres of entirelanclirl Surr.,c'u, No.23.'l'hc lower appcllatc Court disrriissccl the saicl I.,. r itlc orricr dltcrl 0(r.10.2020. llcnce . this('ivil l{cr ision l)ctition.
Learncd counsel lbr the petitioner u,or-rlc] contcr.tcl that tltc lorver appellatc Court erred in holding that the said l.A. cannot bc filed at the appellate stage and that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with the direction to note down the physical features of the entire land in Survey No.23 woLrld help ln rcsolLrtion o l'thc d isputc.
2
CKR. J C.R. P No 1351 oi2020
Lcarncd c()ultscl tbr the respondents opposes this (,ivjl [{cvis ion I)ct itiorr.
It is to ["le noted that the petitioner fileij aforesaid suit claiming righl ovcr tlie property, more particularly, r.r,ith rcspect 1o tl.re propclty admcasuring l6 sq.yards alleged to bc illegally occupied by respondent No.3 and for recovery of possession of the same. A reading of the copy of the plaint discloses that an elaborate pleading has been made as to how and in what manner, the petitioner came to acquire the property. It isnot the case of either ol'the parties that there are temporarystructures existingon 1hc land adnreasr.rring 16 sq.yards, but,the main allegationis with rcspect to the respotldcnts/dcf-endantsoccupying16 sq'yarcls o1' larrcl illcgalll. As thcpetitioncrpraYecl fbr the lclicl' o1' cleclar.ation of titleancl recovcry ol'possessiotrrvith|cs1'rcct to the propeltyadnleasuringl6sq.yardsarrdfclr.pcrlllallelltilrjurlctiorl with respect to thehouseplot admeasuring 291 sq'yardscovered by Survey No.23situated at TeegalpahadVillage'R'/m Mancherial,tho appointment of Advocate Commissionerwould no way helphim nor help in resblving the dispute' as' it is for the petitioner/plaintiffto establishhis title with respectto the property admeasuring16 sq'yards basing on the specific plcadings arldthc evidence adduced'As the title is in disllute'thc ;rp1-ro itrttttctrtol' AclvocatcContrrissiotrcrsor-tld llol illall</sup>
C l\li l C lt l']\ol3ilol20'r(l
3
rnanrlcr helpin resolvinBthe dispute' more particularly.,rvhet't therc is noclcnialwith regar<l to the structuresas alleged by the Prtlt r()ll c r.
ln thoscc irctttlrstzrtlces,this Court clocs trot l-ind atly niertt
in this Civil RevisionPetition.
Accordingly, this CivilRevisionPetitionis dismissed.
Miscelianeous applications, ifany pending, sha1l stand
closed.'fhere shall be no order asto costs.
Sd/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ I \,/'. SECTION OFFICER
To
''1 . The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad, at l,4ancherral. 2 One CC to Sri C. Vikram Chandra, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to IM/s J. Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate IOPUC]
4.--
HIGHCOURT
CKRJ
DATED:07/06/2021
ORDER
CRP.No.1351ol 2020
-i
( o
'J
2 '1 il,li'j2llll o
* *
o
.s P,A Tc
DrsMtsslNG THE CIVILREVISION PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS,
Y ,'\u c
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down physical features would help resolve a title dispute regarding illegal occupation of land.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner is liable to be set aside in a civil revision petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bejanki Narsimha chary
Kotte Devaiah
Kotte Chandraiah
Kashaveni Odelu Uday
Gaddala Shankar
Muthi Jaya Sheela
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
