HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA W.P.NO.8839 OF 2010 Dt.20.4.2010 Between: Shantha Bai w/o.Om Prakash .. Petitioner And The Chairman, Special Tribunal under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act-cum- I Additional District Judge, Adilabad and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA W.P.NO.8839 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Petitioner herein filed I.A.No.746 of 2009 in L.G.O.P.No.1 of 2004 on the file of the Special Tribunal for A.P.L.G (Prohibition) Act-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, under Order 26, Rule 9 C.P.C., for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to demarcate and locate the boundaries of the land bearing Sy.No.126 of Adilabad with the help of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Adilabad. The said application was dismissed by order, dated 12.3.2010. Against which, this writ petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioner that she is owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.126 and respective H.No.3- 2-10/1 of Adilabad admeasuring Ac.1.25 guntas. Out of the said land, the respondents have grabbed land to an extent of 3100 sq.ft. in the said survey number and therefore she filed the aforesaid LGOP against the respondents. It is stated that the respondents have disputed the allegations made by the petitioner stating that they have not grabbed or encroached any part of the land in Sy.No.126, but the land in their occupation is part and parcel of Sy.No.127. As the respondents have denied the identity of the land, the said application is filed for locating the boundaries in Sy.No.126. A counter has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner earlier filed suit in O.S.No.64 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the land bearing Sy.Nos.126 and 127 with the help of M.C. Inspector and in the absence of boundary stones and existence of buildings, the M.C. Inspector expressed his inability to demarcate the lands. If that be so, it is not possible to demarcate the aforesaid land even by the Advocate Commissioner. It is stated that the petitioner was examined as P.W1 in the LGOP and admitted that the subject matter of the suit land and the LGOP is one and the same and the said suit was dismissed and no steps were taken for demarcation of the suit land subsequent to the dismissal of the suit. It is not in dispute that the Mandal Inspector expressed his inability to survey the land in view of the existence of several constructions and that there are no boundary stones to the land in dispute. In view of the said admissions with regard to filing of earlier suit, which was ultimately dismissed, and as the petitioner did not make an attempt to adduce independent evidence for demarcation of her land along with boundaries and as the earlier similar application in the suit was dismissed, no useful purpose will be served even if the Advocate Commissioner is appointed and accordingly dismissed the I.A. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. The application is filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of making local investigation. In a suit or in a LGOP it is for the petitioner to prove and establish the averments made by him independently and it is not open for him for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to gather evidence. No doubt in a decided suit, in the case of partition or eviction, the Advocate Commissioner can be appointed for ascertainment of mesne profits, market value etc., by producing necessary evidence before him. But in a suit, which is yet to be decided, the same course cannot be allowed. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to independently establish her averments and allegations about the alleged grabbing of land by the respondents, whether the land is said to have been grabbed in Sy.Nos.126 and 127 and it is for the petitioner to lead appropriate evidence. It is always open for the petitioner to approach the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Adilabad to get her land demarcated and file the same in support of her allegations during the course of evidence. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in dismissing the said application. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J. 20.4.2010 Note: Issue copy within one week B.O. kpr