IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5908 of 2009 Between: Illuri Venkat Rao. … Petitioner And Gunnam Sambamurthy and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5908 of 2009 ORDER: - Petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.252 of 2007 for declaration to declare the cement road adjusting in between the house of the petitioner and the first respondent belonging to Grampanchayat and also for mandatory injunction for removal of the unauthorised ramp alleged to have been constructed by the first respondent in front of his house, in which he filed I.A.No.806 of 2007 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule property i.e., Q1 H A R1 as shown in the plaint plan and to note down the drainage under the ramp constructed by the first respondent with a direction to open the ramp and to measure a width of the ramp which is encroached by the first respondent and also to note down the other physical features, contending that the first respondent laid a ramp in front of his house to a width of 5 to 6 links to the entire front of his house, thereby the width of the 16 links road was reduced to 12 feet at the entrance of the road and 7.2 feet and 7.6 feet in front of the house of the petitioner and 8.5 feet width in front of the house of Teki Venkanna. So the heavy vehicles passing through the main road will take a turn into 16 links road to reach his house and his neighbours’ house. But due to the construction of ramp, 4 to 5 feet width of the road was diminished and became impossible for tractors to enter into the said road for which they are suffering loss. The respondents filed counter contending that in fact the plaintiff encroached the road by constructing a compound wall and the compound wall of Teki Venkanna and Dasari Satyam are apparently on the road, but the petitioner wisely shown in the plaint plan with wrong description and filed the suit. The lower court dismissed the I.A. stating that the second respondent categorically denied and asserted that the said ramp is constructed by the first respondent at his expenses and it is not causing any inconvenience to anybody and the appointment of commissioner is nothing but to gather the evidence which is not permissible. In view of the fact that ramp was constructed after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and when there is any construction encroaching into the public road, the Gram Panchayat can always take action. The order of the lower court rejecting to appoint an advocate commissioner to gather evidence, does not suffer from any illegality. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 18th December 2009 Lmv