Telangana High Court
Kuntigorla Mattapalli Narasimham, vs Yatham Laxmi, on 18 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1926 of 2023
ORDER:
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India assailing the common order dated 24.03.2023
passed in I.A.No.158 of 2021 in O.S.No.358 of 2014 by the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar (No CRP is filed against I.A.No.157
of 2021).
2. Learned trial Court has allowed I.A.No.158 of 2021 filed by
respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9(4)
R/w. Section 151 of CPC.
3. Petitioner herein is respondent No.1-defendant No.1,
respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent
Nos.2 and 3 herein are respondent Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.2
and 3, in I.A.No.158 of 2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
trial Court grossly erred in allowing the petition in I.A.No.158 of
2021 basing on conjectures and surmises. Learned trial Court
ought to have dismissed the petition in holding that it is not
possible to measure the lands without the help of Tippon and FMB
(Field Measurement Book) because the sub-division numbers and
BRMR,J
extents will be mentioned therein. Learned trial Court failed to take
into consideration that no purpose would be served if the
Commissioner is re-directed to survey the lands with the help of
Village Map (Naksha) since no sub-division numbers and extents
will be mentioned therein. Learned trial Court also erred in coming
to a conclusion that the very purpose of passing the orders in
I.A.No.454 of 2017 and I.A.No.335 of 2019 would be defeated if the
Commissioner is not re-directed to measure the land with the help
of Village Map (Naksha) and prayed to set aside the impugned
order.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-petitioner-plaitniff
submits that the learned trial Court has appreciated the
contentions raised by the parties by taking into consideration of
the orders passed earlier in I.A.No.454 of 2017 and I.A.No.335 of
2019 and rightly allowed the application, no interference is called
for and prayed to dismiss the same.
6. Learned counsels have filed their written arguments.
7. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of
India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and
tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their
jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly
BRMR,J
exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record,
occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming
jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction
which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse
manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 985).
8. Respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.158 of 2021
to re-direct Sri.M. Raja Ram, Advocate, Kodad Town, Suryapet
District to measure and to fix the boundary stones of the suit
schedule property and the entire land including pootu kharab in
Sy.No.163 of Ganapavaram revenue village, Kodad Mandal,
Suryapet District, with Village Map (Naksha), with iron chain and
GPS (Global Positioning System).
9. Petitioner-respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has filed counter
contending that respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff is intending to
invite a pre-trial judgment from the Court through Advocate
Commissioner, which is not permissible under law and further
stated that no such land is available on the spot even according to
the earlier Advocate Commissioner report and prayed to dismiss
I.A.No.158 of 2021.
BRMR,J
10. Respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff has filed suit in
O.S.No.358 of 2014 for declaration of title, recovery of possession,
for correction of entries in the Revenue records and for mesne
profits. The schedule of the property is Ac.0-30 gts., in
Sy.No.163/A, 163/2 and 163/6 situated at Ganapavaram Revenue
Village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District with specific boundaries.
11. Petitioner-defendant No.1, in the said suit filed his written
statement stating that respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff do not
possess any land and she is not entitled for recovery of possession.
12. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 -
petitioner has filed I.A.No.454 of 2017 to appoint Advocate
Commissioner to note down the physical features and measure the
entire land in Sy.No.163 of Ganapavaram revenue village, Kodad
Mandal, Suryapet District and fix the boundary stones of plaint
schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor. Petitioner and
other respondents have contested the matter. The learned trial
Court has allowed the application on 16.02.2018 and appointed
Mr.V. Anjaiah, Advocate as Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit
schedule property, measure the land as well as land of respondent
No.1 therein-defendant No.1 (petitioner herein) with the help of
Mandal Surveyor, note down the physical features of the petition
BRMR,J
schedule property and also directed the Advocate Commissioner to
take work Memos, if any, submitted by either of the parties at the
time of execution.
13. Petitioner herein - respondent No.1 has challenged the order
dated 16.02.2018 passed in I.A.No.454 of 2017 before the High
Court vide CRP.No.1774 of 2018, which came to be dismissed on
13.07.2018.
14. Mr.V. Anjaiah, Advocate has returned the warrant stating
that survey cannot be conducted, thereby the learned trial Court
has closed the said I.A. While things stood thus, respondent No.1 -
plaintiff has filed another I.A.No.335 of 2019 under Order XXVI
Rule 9 of CPC seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to
note down the physical features and to measure the suit schedule
land with tippon with the help of Deputy Inspector of Survey,
Kodad Division. The said application was opposed by the petitioner
herein-respondent No.1-defendant No.1 and other contesting
respondents. Learned trial Court has allowed the said I.A. on
14.11.2019 and appointed Mr.M. Raja Ram, Advocate as Advocate
Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property, measure the
same and also the land of defendant No.1 (petitioner herein) with
the help of Mandal surveyor. Learned trial Court has also directed
BRMR,J
the Advocate Commissioner to give notice to the parties. The
Advocate Commissioner has submitted his preliminary report
stating that he could not execute commissioner warrant as
defendant No.1 (petitioner herein) objected for measuring the land
with the help of Village Map as the warrant copy shows that the
suit schedule land has to be measured with Tippon, but as per the
version of the Deputy Inspector of Survey there was no Tippon
either in the R.D.O. Office or in the District Collector. In view of the
objection raised by the defendant No.1 he could not execute the
warrant and measure the land with the help of Tippon and also the
defendant objected to measure the land with the help of Village
Map (Naksha).
15. Respondent No.1 - petitioner - plaintiff has filed I.A.No.158
of 2021 to re-direct the Advocate Commissioner (Sri.M. Raja Ram)
to measure and to fix the boundary stones of the suit schedule
property and the entire land including pootu kharab land in
Sy.No.163 of Ganapavaram revenue village, Kodad Mandal,
Suryapet District, with Village Map (Naksha), with iron chain and
GPS (Global Positioning System).
16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the
course of arguments contended that unless the property is
BRMR,J
measured with the help of Tippon and FMB (Field Measurement
Book) the sub-division numbers of Sy.No.163 cannot be
ascertained. On careful reading of the counter filed by the
petitioner herein - respondent No.1 in I.A.No.158 of 2021, there is
no whisper with regard to the same.
17. Learned trial Court taking into consideration the preliminary
report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, on the application of
respondent No-1 - petitioner - plaintiff has held that the suit
schedule property with that of the property of petitioner -
respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 can be measured with the help
of Village Map.
18. Maps are official spatial records of the land in the village.
The learned trial Court has properly considered the contentions of
the parties and passed a reasoned order in para No.18 holding that
property can be measured with the help of Village Map.
19. The scope of Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, stated supra at
para No.7.
20. The petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with
the orders passed by the learned trial Court. The Civil Revision
BRMR,J
Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed
and is accordingly, dismissed.
21. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Interim orders if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous
Petitions shall stand closed.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
November 18, 2025
PN
BRMR,J
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1926 of 2023
November 18, 2025
PN
