The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUPetitioner/plaintiff Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in t.A NO. 50 of 2024 in LA NO. 365 of 2022 in O.S.No.833 of 2022 on the fite of the il Additionat District Judge, Medchat Malkajgiri District at. Medchal pending disposal of the above revision. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. ANNAREDDY ARAVINO REDDY, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUK'\ YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N No.l 192 ol 21124 ORDER: I{eard Sri A. Aravind Reddy' Iearned counseI lbr thc revistot.t petitioner and Ms. Vedula Chitratekha' learned counsel ftrr tllc rcspondertt' Perused the entire record.

2. This revision petition is Illcd aggrieved by rhc order dated 18.0i.1024inl.A.No.50 of 2024 inIANo'365 ol 2022 nOSNo8jiof 2022onthefileofthelearncdllAdditionalDistrictantlscssi<lnsJudge, Medchal Malkaigiri at Medchal, ('trial Court')' wherein arr rrpplicatiorr filcd under Order XXVI Rute 9 olC'P'C to appoint an Adv()errtc ( otttniissionct' has been allowed to note down the physical fleatures ol't]re strit schedule property by making local inspcction' 3,Thebrieffactsofthecasearcthattherespondent.plairrtil'l.llledsLrit for declaration and recovery of possession agairrst thc revisiotl petitioner/defendant rvith respect to the suit schedule prol)crty consisting ol' open land admeasuring Ac'0-36 guntas in Sy'Nos'435/l'art & 464/Pan ol Bowrampet Vitlage and Gratn Panchayat, Qutbullapur Nlandal norv (iandi MaisammaMandal,RangaReddyDistrictnow]Vledclral.Malkajgiri District. The said land is bounded by land in Sy.No.471 irr North, by land ++Frl \ -- \l RY.J c.Rt, 1192 2024 .l of'Suryodaya Homes Private l-irnited in South, by land belonging to V Narayana Raju on East and by land in part of Sy.No.464 and 435 in West. The respondent claims to bc the owner and possessor of the above said land having purchased thc same under registered sale deed frorn the erstwhile owner. He was in peaceful possession and while things thus stood, the revision petitioner in the year 2000 approached respondent stating that they being largest firm are intending to construct apartments and demanded to sell the suit schedule property and that they are ready to purchase the same at any cost. The respondent did not agree to sell suir schedule property as he has no need to alienate the same. At that tinte, the revision petitioner liled application before the authorities ol IIMDA seeking layout plan and the respondent submitted an objection letter dated 08.10.2020, not to approve and release the layout because the suit scl-redule property is also included in their requisition. The HMDA dcclincd to approve the layout as there was dispute about possession. Thercattcr, the revision petitioner started visiting the respondent once in a fortnight pressurizing him to alienate the suit schedule propeny and on 2l .02.2022, the respondent erected a fencing with tin sheets cncircling his land by encroaching the suit schedule property, on raising objection and request to removc the same, the revision petitioner threatened the respondent with help of his subordinates ..- o_ond labour men. In that context, a criminal clsc is rcsistercd belbre Police 2 t{\'.1 ('l{l'Il92 l(rl+ Station Dundigal with a request to take necessary actiotr' [)tte to t'too- action of the police, the respondent filed the prescnt 'ruit lirr cleclaration ol his orvncrship, recovery of possession and for costs ln tlre said suit' lrc tiled I.A.No..lrr5 ol' l0ll sceking temporary injunctiorr irs thc rc\ isi\\r'l petitioncr is raising constructions in the suit schcdule propcrt)'' ln the slicl petition. the t.A. under revision is filed lor appointmrrrrt of Advocate Commissioner and the same was allowed by way of imptrgned ordel u'ith a direction to note dow,n the physical features of the suit sclledttle propcrlv by making local inspection. Aggrieved by the same, the prcscnt re'r' isiott is prc lerred.

4. [n the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that thc survcl nrtubcrs claimed by thc revision petitioner and the survey numbcrs clairned by the respondent are dit'lerent except Sy'No'464, which is o ''crlapping' I'he impugned order is passed to note down the physical t.eatlrl es cll the pr.opcr'tr, bytailingtounderstandthattherevisionpetitionerisalsoholdingpropcrt)' inthesaidsurueynumberwithinspecificboundaries..[.hcinrpugrredortle'r has rel-ercnce of the admission of the revision petitio|cr about making construction as the interim injunction order obtained by tlre responden[ $ as not extended. It is ptcaded that the injunction order was ohtained lbr cntirc land to an extent of Ac.2-36 guntas belonging to tlrc verrdor ol'lhe 3 RY.J cRP 1192 2024 ..1 respondent under the garb of the suit schedule property which is only Ac.0- 36 guntas. It is further pleaded that the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule propefty are the boundaries of the vendor of the respondent and therefore, it is difficutt to note down the physical features. The identification of the suit schedule property would be difficult as there is overlapping of survey number and the boundaries are that of the vendor of the respondent and the report submitted would mislead the Cour1. It is lastly pleaded that the respondent filed the I.A. under revision only to fill up the lacuna in his case. f'herefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside by allowing the present C.R.P

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioncr argued that there IS overlapping of Sy.No.464 with respect to the property owned by the rev tston petitioner as well as the respondent. [t is argued that the respondent has given boundaries of land to an extent of Ac.2-36 guntas including the property of vendor of the respondent, but not the boundaries o1' land to an extent of Ac.0-36 guntas, which is owned by respondent Irurther, according to the revision petitioner no fault is committed by raising any construction in their property as there is an interim injunction order in their favour. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of' Gangavarapu Hanumantha Rao @ Anjaneyulu v Battigiri 4 R\",I CRP 1192 2(rl4 Ramulut, wherein it is held that the Commissioner should not be appointcd as a matter of routine at initiat stage in application for tem porary injunction as the possession over the property has to be decided on appreciation of tl-re evident c lct in hi lhe Partics.

6. Learned counsel fbr the respondent argued that the Advocate Comrnissioner is sought to be appointed for noting down the physical t'eatures in thc suit scheduie propefty and not for ascertainine tire possession of the partie s. [t is argued that the leamed trial court has notc-d that thc main suir is fited seeking declaration of title and recovcry ol possession with respcct to the land which is occupied by the revision petitioner. There is grievance about the revision petitioner rnaking a construction over thc property belonging to the respondont and therclbre-, the court hetd that there is need to note down the physical featurcs. Further, reference is made to the judgment of. this court in Mallikarjurra Srinivasa Gupta v. K. Shcshirekha2, wherein an Advoc,lte Clommissioncr was appointed ltrr noting down the physical features of thc propertl' therein.

7. As per the record, the main suit is filed seeking declaralion of titlc and recovery of possession of the property encroacherl by the rcvision t 2oo7 2006 {6) ALr 633 (3) ALD 362 .- \ -c'I .l l RY..I cRP 1192 2024 petitioner. [n a suit for declaration of titlc and recovcry of possession u,henever there is an allegation of encroachment, an Advocate (.ommissioner can always be appointed as held by Madras High Court in Shanmugathai v. Kamalammalr. However, an Advocite Commissioner may not be appointed in a suit for perpetual injunction when the purpose is , to decide the possession over the suit schedule property. In a suit for perpetual injunction, ryhen a4 interlocutory application is fited seeking tcrnpol'ary injunction, relief of appointment ol Advocate Commissioner cannot be granted to ascertain possession as per the legal ratio laid down in (iangavarapu Hanumantha Rao @ Anjancyulu (supra), the said situation is not applicable to the present case as the suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and there is allegation of occupation of suit schedule property by the respondent. The /rs between parties can be decided only by ascerlaining as to whether there was encroachment of suit schedule property and whether there are constructions raised by the revision petitioner in the property belonging to the respondent. As such, this Court sees no infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. il. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed confirming the rrr.dcr dated 28.03.2024 in I.A.No.50 of 2024 in I.A.No.365 oI'2022 in 'rvrANU/rN/031sl2017 6 t I I t i O.S.No.833 of 2022 on the file of the trial Court. Ther.e shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any,, pending shall stand closecl. It-\..r cRP I 192 201,1 SD/. U.SUDHA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The ll Additional Drstrict Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at. Medchal 2. One CC to tr/r ANNAREDDY ARAVIND REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Ms VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate [Of,UC] 4. Two CD Copies RC/PSL M 1 HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012025 :- .a r' -=tl.-t-:-,-- ..t ,- .l \- j.^\ ORDER CRP.No.1192 of 2024 3it 8tI 6 ' ' .'/' ./ The Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. 1 1A tD $