Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 3 (AP)

Alluri Adiah Naidu v. District Collector

2020-01-03

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Not being satisfied with the Order, dated 30.07.2017, wherein, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was allowed in part, the present C.R.P. is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India: The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. show that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession and for a direction to vacate and deliver possession to the petitioner/plaintiff land admeasuring Acres 0.02 cents against defendant nos. 5 and 6 and also to issue an injunction against defendant nos. 1 to 4 to remove the thatched house. The petitioner/plaintiff also sought a direction to restrain the defendant nos. 5 and 6 from encroaching on to road side path which is causing inconvenience to public, apart from the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant nos. 5 and 6 and their men, woman, kith and kin and followers from ever interfering with peaceful right, possession and ownership of the plaint schedule property. 2. It is further stated that about nine months prior to filing of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff made an application for service of F-Line petition to ascertain the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. The Mandal Surveyor visited the schedule property, took measurements and erected plugs showing the defendant nos. 5 and 6 occupied portion of petitioner/plaintiff land. According to the petitioner, defendant nos. 5 and 6 encroached on the land of the petitioner and are occupying the same. Having regard to the above, the suit is filed and later the present I.A. came to be filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down physical features by taking measurements of the plaint schedule property with the aid of Deputy Inspector of Surveyor, RDO Office, Gudivada, so as to identify the encroachments if any made. 3. A counter came to be filed disputing the averments made. It is stated that the petitioner/plaintiff already availed the remedy of getting the land surveyed by making F-line petition and even on his own showing the Surveyor erected plugs. Hence, the question of appointing an Advocate Commissioner would not arise. 4. By an Order, dated 30.07.2019, the Trial Court accepted the plea of the petitioner in part by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features, however, did not accept the plea of the petitioner for taking measurements of the land. Hence, the question of appointing an Advocate Commissioner would not arise. 4. By an Order, dated 30.07.2019, the Trial Court accepted the plea of the petitioner in part by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features, however, did not accept the plea of the petitioner for taking measurements of the land. Challenging the Order in refusing to direct the Advocate Commissioner to take measurements, the present C.R.P. is filed. 5. The petitioner mainly submits that, having regard to the plea taken in the suit and in order to come to a just and reasonable conclusion, it would be just and proper to permit the Advocate Commissioner to take measurements of the land. According to him, no prejudice would be caused if the Advocate Commissioner is directed to take down the measurements of the land. 6. In-Spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 7. As seen from Ex.A11, referred to in the impugned order, the R&B department which is the competent authority to deal with the encroachment is said to have removed the encroachments. 8. The relief claimed in a suit is for grant of a decree and judgment directing the defendant nos. 1 to 4 to vacate, and defendant nos. 5 and 6 be vacated, evicted and peaceful possession of plaint schedule property be delivered back to the petitioner by defendants and their men, woman, kith and kin and others. The portion of the relief does not anywhere referred to eviction if any of the defendants from the encroached land. 9. Similarly, the second relief relates to issuance of mandatory injunction against defendant nos. 1 to 6 to remove thatched house of defendant nos. 5 and 6 from encroaching road side set path causing inconvenience to the plaintiff. For this, Advocate Commissioner need not measure the land, since, the grievance relates to encroaching on to road side path. 10. Having regard to the reliefs claimed, this court is of the view that, there is no necessity for the Advocate Commissioner to take measurements of the site, more so, when the record discloses that R&B officials have taken steps and removed the alleged encroachers in the presence of Revenue and Police Officials, on 13.12.2017. Hence, I see no ground to interfere with the Order, dated 30.07.2019. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Hence, I see no ground to interfere with the Order, dated 30.07.2019. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.