Telangana High Court
Mohmmed Issay Miya vs The State Of Telangana on 14 February, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2919 of 2024
ORDER:
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order
dated 28.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.1382 of 2021 in
O.S.No.646 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, whereby the petition filed
by the petitioner/plaintiff to appoint an Advocate-
Commissioner to note down the physical features of
the suit schedule property, was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Vijay B.Paropkari, learned Counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for the Municipalities,
appearing for the respondents and perused the
record.
3. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he
purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of
Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.39/EE (39/EE/1/1/1/2),
situated at Yendabetla Village of Nagarkurnool
Mandal and District (hereinafter referred to 'subject
property') through registered sale deed
No.2623/2018 dated 18.04.2018, thereafter the
petitioner obtained NALA (Non-Agriculture Lands
Assessment Act) vide Proc.No.A/2411/2019 dated
19.10.2019. While it being so, a notice was issued to
the villagers, including the petitioner that a survey
would be conducted on 12.08.2021 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 13.09.2021
claiming that as many as many as 41 Members of
the villagers are encroachers, among whom the name
of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.41 in the report
and therefore the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for
perpetual injunction against the
respondents/defendants. The petitioner also filed
I.A.No.1382 of 2021 under Order XXVI, Rule-IX of
CPC to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to note
down the physical features of the subject property.
The respondents/defendants filed counter therein
and after hearing both sides, the said Interlocutory
Application was dismissed through impugned order
with an 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 learned Counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the trial 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 the
respondents/defendants asserts that the subject
land falls within the FTL, thus there is a dispute of
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 reliance on the
following Judgments:
1. Jajula Koteswar Rao Vs. Ravulapalli Mathan
Rao 1
2. Haryana Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup and
others 2
6. On the other hand the learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents/defendants basing on
the counter filed by the respondent No.3 would
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.D1/1870/2010 dated 31.12.2019.
2015 (6) ALD 483
(2008) 8 SCC 671
As per the orders passed by the National Green
Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai in O.A.No.182 of
2020 a Joint 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 the said tank.
Accordingly, the Collector & District Magistrate
issued Gazette Notification to that effect and
submitted the copies of Gazette to the Tribunal. The
said Tribunal in its final order dated 17.08.2022
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
the State for perpetual injunction in respect of land
in Sy.No.39/EE (39/EE/1/1/1/2) admeasuring to
an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas, situated at Yendabetla
Village of Nagarkurnool Mandal and District. The
case of the petitioner is that he purchased the
subject property through registered sale deed
No.2623 of 2018, 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 and prepared a
list of encroachers, wherein the name of the
petitioner was shown at Sl.No.41. The petitioner
states that he obtained NALA conversion permission
vide Proc.No.A/2411/2019 dated 19.10.2019.
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
OS No.646/2021 to appoint an Advocate-
Commissioner to measure, localize with the help of
Surveyor, if necessary and to note down the physical
features of the subject property and the same was
dismissed by the trial court, which is impugned in
this Civil Revision Petition.
9. The respondent-authorities have filed counter
in the Interlocutory Application filed by the
petitioner wherein 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 Tribunal, Southern Zone,
Chennai in O.A.No.182 of 2020 and the National
Green Tribunal directed the respondents to
demarcate the FTL and Buffer Zones for
preventing/removing encroachments and in order to
avoid legal repercussions a joint survey was
conducted on 12.08.2021 to 14.08.2021 with the
officials of Irrigation, Revenue, Survey & Land
Records and Municipal Departments by issuing
notices to all the concerned and a General Notice by
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool. After
receiving objections the same were disposed of by the
Executive Engineer, I&CAD giving necessary
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 issued Gazette Notification
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
and District falls under FTL and Buffer Zone
including the land in Sy.No.39/EE to an extent of
Ac.2.00 guntas. Further, the NALA conversion
granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the
Collector and District Magistrate vide Notice
No.D1/1870/2019 dated 31.12.2019.
10. The petitioner has not stated in the plaint or in
the affidavit filed in I.A.No.1382 of 2021 or before
this Court about the cancellation of NALA permission
granted to him and also about the Gazette
Notification No.195/1, dated 25.10.2021 with regard
to declaration of Survey No.39 including the
Sy.No.39/EE, 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.182 of 2020, 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.
11. The trial Court in the impugned order rightly
noticed that the real dispute between the petitioner
and the respondents is with regard 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 trial.
[
12. The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the
case.
13. The petitioner without questioning the survey
conducted by the authorities or the declaration of the
subject property falling under FTL/Buffer Zone or
the cancellation of the NALA permission and not
disclosing the same filed the suit and Interlocutory
Application for appointment of Advocate-
Commissioner. In view of the same, appointment of
Advocate-Commissioner do not serve any purpose
and there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition
to interfere in the orders passed by the trial Court in
I.A.No.1382/2021 in O.S.No.646 of 2021 dated
28.08.2024 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. In view of the above finding, this Civil 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.
____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date:14.02.2025
trr
