Thakur Harinath Singh vs Thakur Ratna Baidied
2025 Latest Caselaw 17 Tel

Telangana High Court

Thakur Harinath Singh vs Thakur Ratna Baidied on 1 May, 2025

        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


     CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2030 & 3355 of 2018


COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in all these criminal petitions is

one and the same, they are being heard together and are

being decided by way of this common order.

2. C.R.P.No.3355 of 2018 is filed challenging the order

dated 23.03.2018 passed in E.P.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.65 of

1976 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda;

C.R.P.No.2030 of 2018 is filed challenging the order dated

23.01.2018 passed in E.A.No.173 of 2017 in E.P.No.01 of

2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Revision

Petitioners filed O.S.No.65 of 1976 seeking recovery of

possession of properties listed in "A" and "B" schedule and for

rectification of records. This suit was clubbed with

O.S.Nos.245 of 1978 and 53 of 1979. By a common judgment

dated 31.03.1986, O.S.No.65 of 1976 was decreed in favour of

the Petitioners, while the other two suits were dismissed.

SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.2030 and 3355 of 2018

Respondent No.1 filed appeals (A.S.Nos.1671 and 1729 of

1986) before this Court, which were also dismissed on

19.06.2000. To enforce the decree, the petitioners initially

filed E.P. under S.R. No. 53 of 2002, which was returned due

to lack of boundary details of the property. Another E.P.No.

72 of 2003 was filed but closed on 14.11.2005 as the warrant

for delivery was returned unexecuted for want of proper

property description. Subsequently, E.P.No.1 of 2009 was

filed. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed but failed to

complete the execution. Later, E.A.No.173 of 2017 was filed

for appointment of a new Commissioner to locate "A" schedule

property, but it was dismissed due to inadequate boundary

details. Finally, E.P.No.01 of 2009 was filed, but the trial

Court dismissed the execution with respect to the "A"

schedule property, citing inability to identify it based on

existing records and commissioner reports. Challenging the

said orders, the present civil revision petitions are filed.

4. Heard Sri S. Balchand, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners. Though notice served upon the

respondents, none appeared on their behalf.

SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.2030 and 3355 of 2018

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the

order passed by the trial Court is contrary to both facts and

settled principles of law. It is contended that the trial Court

has failed to appreciate that in matters involving disputes

regarding the identity of the property, it is a well-established

principle that appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner,

even with the assistance of a qualified surveyor, is not only

permissible but necessary, and does not amount to collection

of evidence. The trial Court has erroneously dismissed

E.A.No.173 of 2017 without due consideration of this

principle. He further submitted that the first execution

petition filed in the year 2002 was returned at the S.R. stage

as not executable, and the second E.P.No.72 of 2003 was

closed without effective adjudication on the ground of absence

of a field assistant's report. He strongly contended that the

executing Court cannot question the validity or executability

of a decree and must only facilitate its execution, and the

observations made by the executing Court questioning the

decree and lamenting the dismissal of the appeal are both

misplaced and beyond its jurisdiction.

SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.2030 and 3355 of 2018

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that at the time of institution of the suit O.S.No.65 of 1976,

the petitioners were minors represented by their next friend,

and hence they were unaware of specific boundary details.

The properties involved are agricultural lands in different

survey numbers, often without clear boundaries in official

revenue records. The learned counsel argues that the trial

Court has ignored the absence of well-maintained revenue

records and the practical difficulties in demarcation, which

could have been resolved by appointing a Commissioner. The

Petitioners also brought to the notice of the trial Court that in

earlier proceedings, including E.P.No.72 of 2003, the trial

Court had directed delivery of possession by the Bailiff, but

the execution was stalled without granting sufficient

opportunity to the Petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended

that an Advocate-Commissioner appointed in E.P.No.1 of

2009, in coordination with Revenue Officials, had partly

identified the "A" schedule lands in Ammagudem Village, and

a surveyor from the Survey Department was also deputed for

this purpose. Despite this progress, the Advocate-

SKS,J C.R.P.Nos.2030 and 3355 of 2018

Commissioner failed to file a complete report, and instead of

summoning the report or directing further survey, the trial

Court summarily dismissed the petition. The learned counsel

also refers to tippans and other revenue records like pahanis

and village maps which, if relied upon correctly, would enable

localization of the "A" schedule property. He asserted that the

executing Court erred in concluding that the absence of

detailed boundaries renders the decree inexecutable and

failed to take effective steps to ensure the petitioners enjoy the

fruits of the decree.

8. He further submitted that the objections raised by

respondent No.4 are not tenable as the appeal filed by the

respondents against the decree had already been dismissed

and most respondents remained ex parte during execution.

The trial Court has misread material evidence and ignored

procedural fairness, especially given that the memo filed by

the Advocate-Commissioner did not state inability to identify

the property. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the

orders of the trial Court by allowing this Civil Revision

Petitions.