IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10192 of 2008 Between: 1 Trilok Singh Soni A/o. Late Gurubachan Singh R/o. 153, Gun Rock Enclave, Phase-II, Secunderabad. 2 Indrajit Singh Soni S/o. Late Singh Soni R/o. 33, Golf View Paradise, Swarna Andhra Enclave, Phase-II, Yapral, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Special Court No.2 under A.P. Land Grabbing ( Prob.) Act, 1982, Dr. Burgula Ramakrishnarao Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderbaad, Rep. by its Registrar. 2 S. Sudershan Goud s/o. Raman Goud R/o. S5, S.S.Complex, Paidgah Colony, S.P.Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent Court in I.A.No.420 of 2008 in LGC No. 29/2002 and its order dated 18-4-2008 and to set aside the same and to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner or to give instructions to the earlier Commissioner to re-visit the Schedule premises by giving proper notice to both the parties and identify the land by taking measurements of the plot and the surrounding path ways and the location of the room in the plot and to note of its physical features, boundaries, measurements etc., with the help of the title deeds by comparing them and to ﬁle a detailed report and to pass such other appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. VLNGK MURTHY, GP FOR REVENUE & GP FOR ASSIGNMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10192 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent Court in I.A.No.420 of 2008 in LGC No. 29/2002 and its order dated 18- 4-2008 and to set aside the same and to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner or to give instructions to the earlier Commissioner to re-visit the Schedule premises by giving proper notice to both the parties. Heard both sides and perused the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when once the commissioner proceeded with the work and he has not given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and without serving notice to the petitioners, an exparte report was submitted and simply the commissioner mentioned in his report that he has not measured the land, since it is beyond the scope of the warrant. Hence, the petitioners ﬁled the application, but the same was dismissed by the court below. Hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy contended that the averments in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition in I.A.No.420 of 2008, there is no mention at all about the non-service of notice and it is altogether a diﬀerent plea. Since, earlier L.G.C.29 of 2002 was dismissed for default in the year 2002 and subsequently, it was restored in the year 2004 and the scope of this petition is very limited and hence there are no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The application in I.A.420 of 2008 in LGC 29 of 2002 was ﬁled under Order 8 Rule 1-A read with Section 151 CPC requesting the court to appoint an Advocate-commissioner to identify the land in the petitioners’ possession by taking measurements of the plot and also the surrounding pathways, inspecting and reporting the location of the rooms. Impugned order clearly discloses that notice was served on the other side and opposing the petition a counter was also filed. In the report ﬁled by the earlier advocate-commissioner, it was mentioned that notices were sent to the addresses of the parties mentioned in Form-I and the notices sent to the petitioners in I.A. 420 of 2008 were returned unserved. Since the advocate appearing for the petitioners was informed about the commission work, the commissioner proceeded with the execution of the warrant and submitted his report. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioners in I.A.420 of 2008, it was mentioned that initially, the commissioner was appointed on the application ﬁled by the respondent in the I.A., who is the applicant in LGC 29 of 2002 and the commissioner has not taken any measurements of the land or the surrounding area, but he has simply followed the sketch ﬁled by the applicant along with the petition. This fact was elicited in the cross- examination of the commissioner that he has not measured the alleged 30 feet road as mentioned in his report since it was beyond the scope of the warrant. As seen from above, though the petitioner has ﬁled objections to the report of the advocate commissioner and the commissioner was also cross-examined, the fact remains that the petitioner or his counsel was present, when the commissioner visited the spot. This is a way has caused prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, to meet the ends of justice, the Special Court be directed to re-entrust the warrant to the same Commissioner and the Commissioner shall be directed to execute the same after issuing opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the Special court to give instructions to the earlier Commissioner to re-visit the Schedule premises by giving proper notice to the petitioners as well as the respondents, so as to avoid further litigation in the matter. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date: 14-07-2008 Rns. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies