THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2077 OF 2011 Dated: 30.09.2011 Between: 1. T. Damodar Rao and 8 others. … Petitioners And M/s. Tecumseh Products India Limited, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Office, Balanagar, R.R. District. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2077 OF 2011 ORDER : The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.106 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the II-Additional District Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the said property. Even before filing their written statement, the defendants filed I.A.No.2528 of 2001 for appointment of an advocate- commissioner to measure the land located within the boundaries of the plaintiff company including the approach road towards North of the plaintiff company as well as the land in dispute and to note down its boundaries with the help of Surveyor and the survey land records. The said application was allowed by order dated 21.3.2000 and the advocate-commissioner appointed by the Court filed his report on 12.2.2007. Contending that the said report of the advocate- commissioner was incomplete, the defendants/revision petitioners filed fresh application being I.A.No.1050 of 2007 seeking appointment of another advocate-commissioner to complete the execution of commission work with the assistance of the officials of survey land records and with the available village maps. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 25.2.2011 and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Sri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, while submitting that the appointment of the advocate- commissioner is essential for identifying the survey numbers accurately so as to give a quietus to the entire l i s , vehemently contended that the Court below committed a grave error in dismissing the application without application of mind to the relevant factors. I have also heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. An advocate-commissioner was admittedly appointed earlier at the instance of the defendants for the very same purpose of measuring the land in dispute and noting down its boundaries. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.1167 of 2000 and it was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.12.2000 with directions as under: “The order passed by the lower Court shall be kept in abeyance and after filing the written statement, if the lower Court feels that localization is necessary to decide the disputes between the parties finally, it is open for the lower Court to revive order in I.A.No.291 of 2000.” Relying upon the said direction, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants vehemently contended that the application for appointment of a second commissioner is not barred. I do not find any substance in the said contention. Apparently the direction in CRP No.1167 of 2000 was only to revive the order of appointment of the Commissioner after filing the written statement by the defendants. Admittedly that stage was over and after filing the written statement, the advocate-commissioner executed the warrant and filed his report on 12.2.2007. Hence the question that requires consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case was there any need for appointment of a second commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M. RAMESH BABU v. M. SREEDHAR[1] wherein after reviewing the relevant case law it was held that there is no bar as such under law for appointment of a second commissioner, even without setting aside the earlier report. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in the said decision. However it was made clear in M. RAMESH BABU’S case (1 supra) itself that such appointment shall be for valid reasons to be recorded, if the circumstances of the case so warrants. In the case on hand the second commissioner was sought to be appointed on the ground that the earlier commissioner did not complete the commission work. In the counter-affidavit filed by the plaintiff, the said plea was disputed and it was contended that the question of demarcation of the land in question did not arise in view of the findings that were recorded in the earlier round of litigation in respect of the said property. It is to be noticed that the main suit was filed seeking a declaration of right and title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land as well as perpetual injunction. The suit land was described as Ac.15-20 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.210/4, Musapet Village, Balanagar Mandal. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule land was allotted by the Government to its sister concern by name J. Engineering Works Limited in lieu of compensation for its land acquired in Sy.No.30. In the plaint schedule, it is shown that the suit land is bounded on the East by Sy.Nos.28 & 29 of Balanagar Village. According to the plaintiff, the said land, together with Sy.No.30 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the Government and in exchange the plaint schedule land in Sy.No.201/4 was allotted to its sister concern. Alleging that the defendants who claim title in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.210/2 & 210/3 attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land situated in Sy.No.210/4, the main suit is filed for declaration of title and injunction. According to the defendants, the plaintiff company had illegally occupied the land in Sy.No.210/2 and 210/3 under the guise of the allotment of the land in Sy.No.210/4. Contending that identification of the land in each survey number and fixation of the boundaries is essential, the defendants filed I.A.No.2528 of 2001 for appointment of advocate-commissioner to measure the land located within the boundaries of the plaintiff company as well as the land in dispute and to note down its boundaries with the help of Surveyor and Survey Land Records with regard to the actual extent of the land located within the factory premises of the plaintiff and the extent of the land in dispute. The Commissioner’s report dated 12.2.2007 shows that the measurements as required were taken, however the survey numbers could not be ascertained because of the huge permanent structures and non-availability of boundary stones of Balanagar, Qutbullahpur and Musapet villages. It was contended by the defendants before the lower Court that the Commissioner could have ascertained survey numbers also and fixed the boundaries of each survey number on the basis of the maps made available by the Surveyor. The Court below did not accept the said contention and declined to appoint the second Commissioner observing that in fact there was no controversy about the identity of the land. As could be seen from the material available on record, even the defendants are not disputing the fact that the boundary stones are not available on the spot. Hence it cannot be said that the advocate- commissioner did not complete the commission. Thus it is clear that no purpose would be served even by appointing a second Commissioner. At any rate since the Court below, on application of mind to the facts and circumstances, opined that the proceedings of the advocate-commissioner cannot be held to be unsatisfactory and had assigned cogent reasons to show that no special circumstances exist for appointing the 2nd Commissioner for the same purpose, the interference by this Court is not warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.09.2011 gbs [1] 2009 (4) ALT 780 (D.B.)