I(.Valarmathi and Others v. Kumaresan

Counset for the Petitioner: Mr. SHAIK MADAR, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent-1: KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI, Advocate Counselfor the Respondent-2 & 3: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER ;.:-. t THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CML REVISION PETITION No.1926 of 2o23 ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the common order dated 24.O3.2023 passed in I.A.No. i58 of 2O2l in O.S.No.358 of 20L4 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar (No CRP is filed against I.A.No.157 of 2O2rl.

2. Learned trial Court has allowed I.A.No.158 of 2O2l filed by respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9(4) R/u,. Section 151 of CPC.

3. Petitioner herein is respondent No.1-defendant No.1 respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are respondent Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.2 and 3, in I.A.No.158 of 2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court grossly erred in allowing the petition in I.A.No.158 of 2O2I basing on conjectures and surmises. Learned trial Court ought to have dismissed the petition in holding that it is not possible to measure the lands without the help of Tippon and FMB (Field Measurement Book) because the sub-division numbers and \ \ BRMR,J CRP.No.1926 ot2023 2 extents will be mentioned therein. Learned trial Court failed to take into consideration that no purpose would be served if the Commissioner is re-directed to survey the lands with the help of Village Map (Naksha) since no sub-division numbers and extents will be mentioned therein. Learned trial Court also erred in coming to a conclusion that the very purpose of passing the orders in I.A.No.454 of 2017 and I.A.No.335 of 2019 would be defealed if the Commissioner is not re-directed to measure the land with the help of Village Map (Naksha) and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.l-petitioner-plaitniff submits that the learned trial Court has appreciated the contentions raised by the parties by taking into consideration of the orders passed earlier in I.A.No.454 of 2Ol7 and I.A.No.335 of 2OIg and rightly allowed the application, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. Learned counsels have filed their written arguments'

7. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly -') -) BRMR,J CRP.No. 1926 of 2O23 exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice b), the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction ',vhich it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (Sec: I(.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC Online SC 985).

8. Respondcnt No.i-petitioner-plaintift filed I.A.No.158 of 2O2l to re-direct Sri.M. Raja Ram, Advocate, Kodad Town, Suryapet District to measure and to fix the boundary stones of the suit schedule property ancl the enlire land including pootu kharab in Sy.No.163 of Ganapavaram revenue village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District, with Village Map (Naksha), with iron chain and GPS (Global Positioning System).

9. Petitioner-respondent No.l-defendant No.1 has filed counter contending that respondent No. l-petitioner-plaintiff is intending to invite a pre-trial judgment from the Court through Advocate Commissioner, which is not permissible under law and further stated that no such land is available on the spot even according to the earlier Advocate Commissioner report and prayed to dismiss I.A.No.158 of 2O2t. ) l l : l I BRMR,J CRP.No.1926 of2023 4 r) 1(). Respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.358 of 20 L4 for declaration of title, recovery of possession, for correction of entries in the Revenue records and for mesne profits. The schedule of the property is Ac.O-3O gts-, in Sy.No. 163 / A, 16312 and I 63 /6 situated at Gapapavaram Revenue Village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District with specific boundaries.

11. Pctitioner-defendant No.1, in the said suit filed his written statement stating that respondent No.l-petitioner-plaintiff do not possess any land and she is not entitled for recovery of possession. L2. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 petitioner has filed I.A.No.454 of 2017 to appoint Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and measure the entire land in Sy.No.163 of Ganapavaram revenue village, Kodad IVlandal, Suryapet District and fix the boundary stones of plaint schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor. Petitioner and other respondents have contested the matter. The learned trial Court has allowed the application on 16.02.2018 and appointed Mr.V. Anjaiah, Advocate as Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property, measure the tand as well as land of respondent No.l therein-defendant No.l (petitioner herein) with the help of Mandal Surveyor, note down the physical features of the getition --.) 5 BRMR,J CRP.No. 1926 of 2O23 schedule property and also directed the Advocate Commissioner to take work Memos, if any, submitted by either of the parties at the time of execution.

13. Petitioner herein - respondent No.l has challenged the order dated 16.02.2018 passed in I.A.No.454 of 2OI7 before the High Court vide CRP.No.1774 of 2018, which came to be dismissed on

13.O7.2018.

14. Mr.V. Anjaiah, Advocate has returned the warrant stating that survey cannot be conducted, thereby the learned trial Court has closed the said I.A. While things stood thus, respondent No.1 - plaintiff has filed another I.A.No.335 of 2019 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to measure the suit schedule land with tippon with the help of Deputy Inspector of Survey, Kodad Division. The said applicatior-r was opposed by the petitioner herein-respondent No. 1-defendant No. I and other contesting respondents. Learned trial Court has allowed the said I.A. on

14.1L.2019 and appointed Mr.M. Raja Ram, Advocate as Advocate commissioner to visit the suit schedule property, measure the same and also the land of defendant No.l (petitioner herein) with the help of Mandal surveyor. Learned trial court has also diregted \ \-\ BRMR,J CRP.No.1926 of 2023 6 r) the Advocate Commissioner to give notice to the parties. The Advocate Commissioner has submitted his preliminary report stating that he could not execute commissioner warrant as defendant No.l (petitioncr herein) objected lor measuring the land with the help of Village Map as the warrant c.opy shows that the suit schedule land has to be measured with Tippon, but as per the version of the Deputy Inspector of Survey there was no Tippon either in the R.D.O. Officc or in the District Collector. In view of the objection raised by the defendant No.1 he could not execute the warrant and measure the land with the help of Tippon and also the defendant objected to measure the land with the help of Village Map (Naksha).

15. Respondent No.1 - petitioner - plaintiff has liled I.A.No.158 of.2021 to re-direct the Advocate Commissioner (Sri.M. Raja Ram) to measure and to fix the boundary stones of the suit schedule property and the entire land including pootu kharab land in Sy.No.163 of Ganapavaram revenue village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District, with Village Map (Naksha), with iron chain and GPS (Global Positioning System).

16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of arguments contended that unless the property is .t. BRMR,J CRP.No.1926 of 2023 7 measured with the help of Tippon and FMB (Field Measurement Book) the sub-division numbers of Sy.No.163 cannot be ascertained. On careful reading of the counter filed by the petitioner herein - respondent No.1 in I.A.No.158 of 2021, there is no whisper with regard t-o the same. L7. Learned trial Court taking into consideration the preliminary report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, on the application of respondent No- 1 petitioner - plaintiff has held that the suit schedule property with that of the property of petitioner respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 can be measured with the help of Village Map.

18. Maps.are offibial spatial records of the land in the village. Thq learned trial Court has properly considered the contentions of the parties and passed a reasoned order in para No.18 holding that property can be measured with the help of Viliage Map. L9. The scope of Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, stated supra at para No.7.

20. The petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned trial Court. The Civil Revision i I l' BRMR,J CRP.No.1926 ot 2023 8 n Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed 2L. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Interim orders if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SDI U.SUDHA ISTANTRE ON OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Huzurnagar 2. The Tahsildar,, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District. 3. One'CC to Mr. SHAIK MADAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Mr. KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURIAdvocate [OPUC] 5- Two CD Copies ry, RC/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1811112025 J 2t' ORDER CRP.No.1926 of 2023 Dismissing the Civil Revision I \ \tz