ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated07.11.2023 in I.A.No.1121 of 2017 in O.S.No.177 of 2014 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, appointing a Commissioner to segregate the dump mined by the plaintiff from other materials on the site. 2. The petitioner herein is the 7 th defendant, the 1 st respondent is the plaintiff, and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the defendants in the suit (during the pendency of the suit, the 6 th defendant died, and the 7 th defendant was impleaded as a party respondent as the legal heir of the 6 th defendant, vide orders dated 02.05.2019 in I.A.No.547 of 2017). 3. The suit was filed seeking a declaration of title, permanent injunction, and to declare the proceedings dated 22.05.2010, granting a No Objection Certificate in favor of the 6 th respondent/6 th defendant is null and void. The suit also sought to declare the lease dated 27.05.2014, granted by the Government in favor of the 6 th defendant and transferring of the said lease in favor of the 7 th respondent by the Tahsildar, as illegal and arbitrary. For the purpose of this order, the parties as referred at Court below shall be followed. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.9.25 cents, having acquired the same vide registered sale deed dated 17.02.2001 from its rightful owner i.e., Pamidi Subbarathamma. 5. The suit schedule property has been utilized as a dumping yard for waste material accrued due to its quarrying operations of M/s. Anand Granite Exports Private Limited. In which the petitioner is also one of the director of the company and since then the waste material of the petitioner company has been dumping at subject place. 6. While so, the present I.A.No.1121 of 2017 in O.S.No.177 of 2014, seeking the appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property with the assistance of the Government Mandal Surveyor and note down the nature of the dump and its extent. 7. Initially, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.495 of 2014, seeking a temporary injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 6. The Court below passed an order on 05.08.2014, restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. 7. Initially, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.495 of 2014, seeking a temporary injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 6. The Court below passed an order on 05.08.2014, restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. The 6 th defendant challenged this order by filing C.M.A.No.790 of 2014, which was allowed on 02.12.2014. 8. The petitioner then filed S.L.P. No. 778 of 2015 before the Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 02.12.2014. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. on 06.10.2017 and made the following observations: “…..it is open to the plaintiff to move the trial court for appointment of commissioner for segregating the waste material mined by the petitioner herself from the rest of the what is otherewise there in the suit schedule property. It is also further observed that all the contentions are left open to both the parties.” 9. In view of the categorical observation and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.10.2017, the plaintiff filed this application seeking for appointment of advocate commissioner to inspect the suit locality and note down the nature of dumping. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.778 of 2015, dated 06.10.2017, and was only to move the Trial Court to appoint a commissioner, in order to segregate whatever has been allegedly dumped by the petitioner from the rest of the what is otherwise there in the property. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present interlocutory application for the appointment of a commissioner was filed based on the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, there is no value to the waste material dumped in the suit schedule property. 12. In that case, the Commissioner can be appointed to segregate the waste material from the mining land. He further submits that if the suit schedule property is the plaintiff's personal property, why the said waste material is dumped on the said land by M/s. Anand Granite Exports Private Limited. 13. The following questions arise: 1. Whether the plaintiff maintain an application for the appointment of a Commissioner to note down the waste material dumped by M/s. Anand Granite Exports Private Limited? 2. 13. The following questions arise: 1. Whether the plaintiff maintain an application for the appointment of a Commissioner to note down the waste material dumped by M/s. Anand Granite Exports Private Limited? 2. Whether the plaintiff claim that the waste material was mined by her, when her specific case in the plaint is that it was mined by M/s.Anand Granite Exports Private Limited? 3. Whether waste material dumped into the mining land of Ac.9.25 cents can be identified and noted down by Commissioner and whether it would not amount to gathering the evidence? 4. Whether the trial court justified in appointing a Commissioner based on a simple observation in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.778 of 2015, dated 06.10.2017, without providing proper reasons? 14. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court, dated 19.02.2016, in C.R.P. No. 5837 of 2015, the the relevant portion is extracted below: “21. To appoint an Advocate Commissioner, Court has to keep in mind the following: 1. Total pleads of both parties; 2. Relief claimed in suit;” 15. In view of the clear and categorical observations made in the aforementioned judgment, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed. 16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's attempt to challenge the appointment of the commissioner on the grounds that it amounts to gathering evidence misconstrues the role of the commissioner in this case. The commissioner's task is purely to assist the court in identifying the existing physical features of the property, specifically the extent of the mine dump attributable to the respondents. This factual determination is critical to the adjudication of the core dispute and does not equate to the collection of evidence in violation of procedural law. The contention that the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction or contrary to the law is unfounded. In fact, the Court below decision reflects a prudent and judicious exercise of its discretion, with the sole objective of ensuring that the factual issues related to the mining dump are properly ascertained. 17. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner herein was indeed present at the time of the passing of the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner herein was indeed present at the time of the passing of the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that, having invited the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is estopped from filing the present CRP, and therefore, the captioned CRP is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 18. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 5, representing various Government authorities, did not raise any objections to the appointment of a Commissioner. However, the petitioner opposed the appointment, claiming that it would amount to gathering evidence. Despite the petitioner's objections, the Court below, in compliance with the Supreme Court's direction, appointed an Advocate Commissioner. 19. It is submitted that the presence of other mining companies in the surrounding area has complicated the issue of ownership over the dump material. The segregation process, under the guidance of a commissioner, will help clarify the extent of the respondent's mining activity and the material deposited by her company, thereby avoiding any future disputes over the ownership of the dump land. 20. In light of these facts, it is clear that the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is crucial to resolving the core issue in this suit, i.e., the identification and segregation of the mine dump attributable to the respondent. The Court below order was a necessary step towards ensuring a fair adjudication of the dispute and is in line with the Supreme Court's directions. 21. It is submitted that the Supreme Court's directions in the matter were clear, leaving it open to the respondent to seek the appointment of a commissioner to segregate the dump attributable to her. The petitioner's assertion that the Supreme Court's observations were "obiter dicta" misrepresents the clear directions of the Court. The lower Court's order is entirely in line with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 22. It is therefore evident that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition are unfounded and without merit. The lower Court's order is just, proper, and in full compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is necessary for the fair adjudication of the matter, and any attempt to contest this is purely an attempt to delay the proceedings. 23. The lower Court's order is just, proper, and in full compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is necessary for the fair adjudication of the matter, and any attempt to contest this is purely an attempt to delay the proceedings. 23. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. Pursed the material placed on record. 24. On perusal of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.778 of 2015 dated 06.10.2017. It is specifically observed as under: “It will be open for the petitioner to move the trial court for appointment of commissioner in order that whatever has been allegedly mined by the petitioner/herself should be segregated from it is otherwise their on the property.” 25. Therefore, while passing the order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautiously observed that the appointment of a commissioner is necessary to segregate the material dumped by M/s. Anand Granite Exports Private Limited, in which the plaintiff is one of the directors. It is a settled proposition of law that, in view of disputes regarding physical features, identification, and demarcation of the property or what was laid on the suit schedule property, warrants for appoint of commission to ascertain the fact in issue, for better adjudication of the lis. 26. In the present case, the core issue between the plaintiff and the defendants is whether the petitioner/M/s. Anand Granite Exports Private Limited is dumping its milled waste material at the subject dumping place or not. The plaintiff claims possession over the subject property, contending that she has been utilizing the land to dump waste material from M/s. Anand Granite Exports Private Limited and subject suit land is meant for that only. 27. Therefore, the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner in these circumstances is certainly necessary to resolve the core issue/dispute between the parties. The defendants, particularly the 6 th defendant, contend that the appointment of a commissioner is only for gathering evidence. However, this claim is contrary to the facts and circumstances and is but only an imaginary thinking and contrary to the specific observation of Hon’ble Apex Court. 28. The defendants, particularly the 6 th defendant, contend that the appointment of a commissioner is only for gathering evidence. However, this claim is contrary to the facts and circumstances and is but only an imaginary thinking and contrary to the specific observation of Hon’ble Apex Court. 28. It is well-settled law that once a plaintiff, as a property holder, claims assets and rights based on registered and admitted title deeds acquired more than 12 years prior to the filing of the suit, and two decades prior to the filing of the Revision Petition, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be brush aside on the ground of assumptions and presumptions of common utilization of schedule land. 29. As such, it is settled proposition of law once claim of the plaintiff basing upon the title deeds and long possession more than 12 years either by way of summary procedure or by issuing other procedure claiming rights is not valid. The official respondents cannot grant leasehold rights claiming ownership against the subject property without bypassing due procedure, which involves invoking jurisdiction to set aside the title deeds held by the plaintiff. Therefore, the granting of the lease dated 27.05.2014 without resorting to the due procedure for cancellation of title deeds in favor of the petitioner is contrary to law and cannot take away the rights of the plaintiff. 30. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any relief regarding the value of the waste material dumped in the suit schedule property and appointing commissioner is not necessary due mere observation in order by the Hon’ble Apex Court is certainly contrary to fact in issue in the suit and also object of order of Apex Court. 31. Whether a commission can be appointed to segregate the same is contrary to the facts. For the reason that, even though it is for the plaintiff to seek relief, it is the domain of the plaintiff to seek relief in their plaint. 32. Mere not claimed any relief, which is not necessary for the plaintiff, cannot restrain them from seeking relief for a collateral purpose to achieve the main relief. For the reason that, even though it is for the plaintiff to seek relief, it is the domain of the plaintiff to seek relief in their plaint. 32. Mere not claimed any relief, which is not necessary for the plaintiff, cannot restrain them from seeking relief for a collateral purpose to achieve the main relief. As per the settled legal proposition, "obiter dicta", it is further observed that the plaintiff categorically stated in her plaint that the subject property was acquired for the purpose of dumping waste material of M/s. Anand Granite Exports Private Limited, in which the petitioner is one of the directors. 33. Therefore, the right of the petitioner as well as her company cannot be denied. The appointment of a commissioner, pursuant to the petitioner's application, is certainly to solve the core issue/dispute between the petitioner and respondents. This confirms the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is very much necessary to determine the claims of the plaintiff/defendants by the court below. 34. Therefore, the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is necessary for the fair adjudication of the matter, and any attempt to contest such appointment is only intended to delay the proceedings or canvass against the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 35. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.No.5837 of 2015 is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances and is liable to be rejected. 36. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, the Court below rightly allowed the application of the petitioner and appointed the Advocate Commissioner for better adjudication of the claim/dispute between the petitioner/respondents. 37. As such, the impugned order of the Court below does not warrant any interference from this Court. For the reasons stated above, the C.R.P. is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.