IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :1207 of 2006 Between: Sabavat Rukman Naik ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. R. Venkatarami Reddy and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1207 OF 2006 ORDER: Aggrieved by order, dated 7.12.005 in I.A.No.973 of 2005 in L.G.C.No.56 of 2002 passed by the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (P) Act, Hyderabad, the present revision petition has been filed. The petitioner herein, who is the sole applicant in the above L.G.C., filed an application in I.A.No.570 of 2003 for appointment of a Commissioner. Accordingly, Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, was appointed as Commissioner and he submitted his report. Then, the petitioner herein filed his objections to the Commissioner’s report and prayed the Court below to give findings on those objections. But the Court below posted the matter for trial. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application seeking to consider the objections filed by him and the Court below passed an order stating that the Commissioner’s report may be called along with the main L.G.C. for disposal. On that, the petitioner filed CRP No.6650 of 2003. This Court having observed that the objections filed by the petitioner must be considered and decided before the report can be relied upon, disposed of the said CRP with a direction to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. While so, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.973 of 2005 for appointment of a new Commissioner-cum-Surveyor for answering his objections. The Court below having observed that after completing the evidence of both sides, appointment of a new Commissioner can be considered, but there cannot be any appointment of fresh commissioner only for the purpose of answering the objections of the previous Commissioner and that the petitioner can move an application for appointment of a fresh Commissioner, if so desires, after completing the evidence of both sides, dismissed the above application. Having aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. Record shows that the notice was served on the Advocate of the lower Court of Respondents 1, 6 to 8 on 16.3.2008 and it was acknowledged on 25th March, 2008 and a proof of service was also filed under USR No.452 of 2008. Heard the learned Counsel on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the matter is at the trial stage and both the parties have not yet let in their evidence and the Commissioner, who submitted his report as directed by the Court below in I.A.No.570 of 2003, died. At this stage, the petitioner filed the above application seeking to answer the objections filed by him to the commissioner’s report. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the death of the previous Commissioner, I feel that the observations made by the Court below in the order under revision are on sound footing and they do not warrant any interference of this Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application for appointment of a fresh commissioner, if so desire, as observed by the Court below. On such application being made, the same shall be disposed of, in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 24th September, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4389 OF 2009 18.09.2009