The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.2355 of 2012
Dated 04.09.2014
Between:
Smt.B.Ramulamma (died per LRs.) and another …Petitioner And 1.G.Raghunandana Chary and 4 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.N.Ranga Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2:
None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5: Mr.J.Venudhar Reddy The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 29.02.2012, in IA.No.446 of 2008 in OS.No.975 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner and his mother (deceased first plaintiff) filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-21 guntas in Survey No.7, situated at Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner pleaded that the respondents, purporting to raise construction over plot Nos.2 and 3 in Survey Nos.6 and 5 respectively, are interfering with his possession of the land situated in Survey No.7; that he has filed IA.No.760 of 2008 for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to measure the entire land of Acs.2-21 guntas in Survey No.7 of Balapur Village and fix up the boundaries; that the lower Court has allowed the said application and appointed an Advocate- Commissioner; and that the Advocate- Commissioner has taken the assistance of the Deputy Inspector of Survey and submitted his report, dated 22-06-2011. The petitioner has, thereafter, filed IA.No.874 of 2011 for appointing another Advocate-Commissioner to fix up the boundary stones of entire Survey No.7 with the help of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, with tonch map and teepon. This application has been dismissed by the lower Court on 29-02-2012.
In its Order, the lower Court has observed that the report of the Advocate-Commissioner would reveal that he has measured the land with the assistance of the Government Surveyor and submitted the report; that being the plaintiff, the burden lies on the petitioner to prove his possession over the suit schedule property; and that if he has any grievance against the Advocate- Commissioner’s report, he is entitled to cross- examine the Advocate-Commissioner as well as the Surveyor to question the credibility of the said report. The lower Court has, therefore, opined that there is no need for re-issue of warrant to measure the land once again.
After hearing the learned Counsel for both parties, I am of the opinion that the very appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner itself was unwarranted for, ordinarily, in a suit for perpetual injunction, no Commissioner is appointed. A suit for injunction is filed on the premise that the plaintiff is in possession of a specified extent of land. Unless he has clear evidence of being in possession of such land, he is not expected to file a suit and then collect evidence in support of his pleadings in the plaint through appointment of a Commissioner. It is trite that a Commissioner is not appointed for collecting evidence. As rightly observed by the lower Court, the burden lies on the petitioner/plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit schedule property as pleaded by him in the plaint. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason, whatsoever, for appointing another Commissioner based on the alleged defects in the survey and demarcation of the land got conducted by the Advocate- Commissioner.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, interim order, dated 11-10-2012, is vacated and CRPMP.No.2355 of 2012 is disposed of.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 4th September, 2014
LUR