Jajula Kotesutar Rao v. Ranrulapalli Mqthdn Raol

Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O. S. No 646 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Nagarkurnool District till the disposal of the petitions filed on the File of the Honble Principal Junior civil Judge's Court, Nagarkurnool District. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Vijay B. Paropkari Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Putta Krishna Reddy Standing Counsel for the Municipalities. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH CML REVISION PETITION No.2919 of 2024 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is hled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in I.A.No. 1382 of 2O2l in O.S.No.646 of 2O2l on the file of Principa,l Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to appoint al Advocate- Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule propert5r, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Vrjay B.Paropkari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Stalding Counsel for the Municipalities, appearing lor the respondents ald perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he purchased the iand admeasuring to an extent of l 2 Ac.2.Oo guntas in Sy.No.39 IEE (Sg IEE/ t I t I t /2), situated at Yendabefla Village of Nagarkurnool Manda,l and District (hereinafter referred.to ,subject property) through registered sale deed No.2623/2018 dated lg.O4.2)lg, thereafter the petitioner obtained NALA (Non_Agriculture Lands Assessment Act) vide proc.No.A/2417/2019 dated

19.IO.2O19. While it being so, a notice was issued to the villagers, including the petitioner that a survey would be conducted on |2.OB.2O2I for fixing the FTL property 'Kesari Samduram, and accordingly survey was conducted and the respondent No.3/defendant No.3, basing on the survey report, dated 13.09.202 1 cldming that as many as ma_ny as 41 Members of the villagers are encroachers, alnong whom the name of the petitioner was shown at S1.No.41 in the report and therefore the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction against ., respondents/defendants. The petitioner a-lso filed I.A.No.13U2 of 2021 under Order XXVI, Rule-lX of CPC to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the subject propert5r. The respondents/defendants filed counter therein and after hearing both sides, the said Interlocutory Application was dismissed through impugned order with arr observation that if an Advocate- Commissioner is appointed, as sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff, it leads to collection of evidence. Being aggrieved by the same, present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. The iearned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the tria,l Court ought to have seen that the subject land is far away from FTl/buffer zone as per the contentions of the petitioner/plaintiff and th.e respondents/defendants asserts that the subject t lan$ fatls within the FTL, thus there is a dispute of 4 identity and boundaries and therefore the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and requested to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff in support of his contention placed reiialce on the following Judgments:

7. Jajula Kotesutar Rao Vs. Ranrulapalli Mqthdn Raol

2. Haryana. Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup and others2

6. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/defendants basing on the counter fiied by the respondent No.3 wouid submit that the NALA conversion orders in respect of Survey No.39 of Nagarkunool Town and District have been cancelled by the Collector & District Magistrate vide Notice No.D 1 / |BTO I 2O1O dated 3 1 . 12 .2019. ' zors 1e; ero +t: '(zoot) s scc ozr I 5 As per the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Cl:ennai in O.A.No.182 of 2O2O a .Ioit-tt Survey was conducted by Revenue, Irrigation and Land Records Department and as per the said survey the survey No.39 falls under the Full Tank Level and Buffer Zone of Kesari Samudram Tank. 'the subject land of the petitioner also falls under FTL and Buffer Zone of tLre said tark. Accordingly, the Collector & District Magistrate issued Gazette Notification to that effect and submitted the copies of Gazette to the Tribuna1. The said Tribunal in its final order dated 17 "OA.2O22 directed the respondents to remove the encroachments in the water bodies and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

7. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner filed suit against t l 6 the State for perpetua-l injunction in respect of land in Sy.No.39 IE,E (39lEEll I I ll /2) admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.OO guntas, situated at Yendabetia Village of Nagarkurnool Mandal and District. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the subject property through registered sa-le deed No.2623 of 2OLa, dated 18.04.2018 and the respondent-authorities are claiming that the subject property falls within FTL of Kesari Samudram and interfering with the possession of the petitioner as encroacher of the subject property a-nd prepared a list of encroachers, wherein the narne of the petitioner was shown at S1.No.4 1. The petitioner states that he obtained NALA conversion permission vide Proc.No.A/24II / 2Ol9 dated 19.10.2079.

8. The contention of the petitioner is that the survey conducted by the respondent-authorities is not binding on him and filed I.A.No.1382/2021 in 7 OS No.646 /2021 to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to measure, loca)ize with the help of Surveyor. if necessa4r and to note down the physicat features of the subject property and the s€une was dismissed by the tria,l court, which is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

9. The respondent-authorities have hled r:ounter in the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner r.r'herein the respondent No.3 categorically stated that the subject property falls within the FTL/Buffer Zone and the same was subject matter before the National Green Tribuna_l, Southern Zone, Chennai in O.A.No. 182 of 2O2O and the National Green Tribunal directed the respondents to demarcate the FTL and Buffer Zones for preventing/removing encroachments and in order to avoid lega1 repercussions a joint survey was conducted on 12.08.2021 to 14.08.2021 with the I 8 officials of Irrigation, Revenue, Survey & Land Records and Municipal Departments by issuing notices to a-tl the concerned and a General Notice by the Revenue Divisional Offrcer, Nagarkurnool. After receiving objections the same were disposed of by the Executive Engineer, I&CAD giving necessa-ry endorsements to the objectors and the survey report was furnished to the Municipal authorities to take up necessary rectification activities. In pursuance to the said survey report, the Collector and District Magistrate, Nagarkurnool is sued G azette No tifi cation by marking the particular land as FTL in Gazette Notification No.195/1, dated 25.10.2021, wherein it was notified that Sy.No.39 of Nagarkurnool Town arrd District falls under FTL and Buffer Zone including the land in Sy.No.39/EE to an extent of Ac.2.OO guntas. Further, the NALA conversion granted to ttre petitioner was cancelled by the '"t - _, 9 Collector and District Magistrate vide Notice No.D1/ L87O l2Ol9 dated 31. t2.2otg.

10. The petitioner has not stated in the plaint or in the affidavit filed in I.A.No. 1382 of 2O2l or before this Court about the cancellation of NALA permission granted to him and also about the Gazette Notification No.195/1, dated 2S.LO.2O2I with regard to declaration of Survey No.39 including the Sy.No.39/Etr, in which the land of the petitioner is located, as FTL/Buffer Zone of Kesari Samudram,. The petitioner without challenging the survey conducted by the respondent-authorities as per the orders of the National Green Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No.l82 of 2O2O, now wants to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to measure, localize with the help of Surveyor and to note down the physical features of the subject property in the suit for -_.-_ injunction. / t, l0 1 1. The trial Court in the impugned order rightly noticed that the real dispute between the petitioner and the respondents is with rega_rd to existence of subject property within the limits of FTL and buffer zone and the petitioner and the respondents are raising boundary dispute, which can be settled at the time of tria]. L2. T}re Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the CASC.

13. The petitioner without questioning the survey conducted by the authorities or the declaration of the subject property fa,lling under FTL/Buffer Zone or the cancellation of the NALA permission and not disclosing the same frled the suit and Interlocutory Application for appointment of Advocate_ 1 Commissioner. In view of the same, appointment of ,s t1 Advocate-Commissioner do not serve any plrrpose and there are no merits in the Civil Revision petition to interfere in the orders passed by the tria-l Court in I.A.No.1382l2O2L in O.S.No.646 of 2O2t dated

24.08.2024 and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. In view of the above finding, this Civit Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHU AMBA ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nagar Kurnool' 2. One CC to Sri Vijay B. Paropkari, Advocate [OPUC] ; o;; cc to Sri Putta Kiishna Reddy standing counsel for the MuniciPalitiesloUTl

4. Two CD CoPies DL/gh / I t l L HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 , ORDER CRP.No.2919 ot 2O1t"4 6t{1 t4'ti t 3O llPfr 2,q?5 f :- C o€.g,r7 s1-. ..r/O a DISMISSING THE C R"P 7 4.2 F/a /z,