THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :3181 of 2010 DATED:27.06.2011 Between: Shivlal & 5 others. ..... PETITIONERS And Managing Committee of Panch Bhai Alawa Masjid Graveyard, Karwan Sahu, Rep.by its President, Hyderabad & 4 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 27.04.2010, in I.A.No.575 of 2007 in O.S.No.98 of 2006 on the file of the learned A.P.Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein-defendants 1 to 6 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection of the disputed land and fixing boundaries of the schedule property with the help of a qualified Surveyor, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit land. According to the 1st respondent-plaintiff the suit land is part of a graveyard admeasuring 14,426 sq.yards and that the petitioners-defendants have been illegally trespassing and occupying a portion of the same. Petitioners-defendants filed written statement inter alia contending that the suit land is a Government land and that they have been using the same since long as dhobi ghat in an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.Nos.133; 134 and 135 and the 1st respondent-plaintiff has no right over the same. 4. After necessary issues were settled, on 10.10.2006, the matter was posted for trial. At that stage, defendants 1 to 6 filed I.A.No.575 of 2007 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for local inspection of the disputed land and fixing the boundaries thereof with the help of a qualified Surveyor. Respondents herein opposed the same on the ground that the survey was already conducted. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application holding that the suit being one for injunction and there being no issue in respect of the title over the property, survey of the disputed land is not called for. Hence, the present revision by the petitioners-defendants. 5. It is not disputed that the disputed land is claimed by both parties to the suit, the Board claiming the same to be part of the graveyard and the petitioners-defendants contending that it is a part of the Government land being used as dhobi ghat since many years. Both parties are making allegations of encroachment by the other side. 1st respondent filed the suit for perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the petitioners-defendants 1 to 6 from encroaching the disputed land. Petitioners claim to be in possession thereof on the ground that it is dhobi ghat. The pleadings of both parties certainly give raise to a dispute over the boundary between the government land and the Wakf property. 6. Learned counsel for the Wakf Board contends that previously survey was conducted and surveyor filed a report on 02.02.2008. A copy of the said report filed along with the counter affidavit filed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board would show that the Mandal Surveyor has equivocally stated that as per the records of the Wakf Board the disputed land is the Wakf property and as per the revenue records it is a Government land. The said report is of no use or assistance to either of the parties as the same does not fix the boundary between the Government land and the Wakf property nor it discloses the manner in which the survey was conducted and with reference to what documents the measurements were taken. In fact no plan or sketch prepared by the surveyor at the time of the said survey was filed. The said report also shows that initially there was objection raised by the Masjid committee for taking the measurements. 7. Under those circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the Wakf Board that since survey was already conducted fresh survey is not called for, is unsustainable as the previous survey report, dated 02.02.2008, does not establish anything nor does it help the adjudication of the dispute. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, it is necessary to localize the disputed land by demarcating the boundary between the Wakf property, which is used as a graveyard and the Government land, which is used as dhobi ghat. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make a local inspection and to localize the disputed land with the help of a qualified surveyor would certainly help the Court in finding a lasting solution to the dispute between the parties over the boundary. Such a report together with a plan, prepared by the qualified surveyor duly noting the measurements, would be of immense assistance to the Court in effectively and comprehensively adjudicating the real dispute between the parties and settle the same once and for all. In that view of the matter, it is considered appropriate to direct the trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to make a local inspection of the suit land and identify the boundaries thereof with the help of a qualified surveyor who shall take necessary measurements with reference to the records produced by either parties and also the revenue records and file a report together with a plan and also to note the topographical features of the disputed land. The trial Court may fix the appropriate remuneration payable to the Advocate Commissioner. The warrant shall be executed after issuing prior notice to both parties and the trial Court may address the concerned survey authorities to depute a qualified and experienced surveyor to assist the Advocate Commissioner. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 27th June, 2011. Tsy