IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.716 OF 2010 Between: Pandalaneni Venkatarathnam and another …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.716 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.11.2009 in A.S.No.56 of 2005, on the ﬁle of the IV-Additional District Judge (F.T.C.III), Khammam, wherein the said application ﬁled by the petitioner herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, seeking appointment of and Advocate- commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule land and the course of Murredu Vagu and to locate the lands in Sy.Nos.282 and 241 with the help of a qualified surveyor, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein ﬁled the suit O.S.No.199 of 1989 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule land of Ac.15-01 gts situate in Sy.No.282 of Poosagudem village. According to the plaintiﬀs, the schedule land is their private patta land and the government has no right therein, but, however under the guise of assigning pattas to landless poor belonging to scheduled tribe community in Sy.No.241, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has been issuing pattas for the land situate in Sy.No.282. Initially, the suit was decreed after contest and on appeal by the government, the matter was remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal. After remand, the suit was dismissed, observing inter alia that it is for the plaintiﬀs to have a commission for survey and land demarcation for noting the physical features to show whether the schedule land of Ac.15-01 is situate in Sy.No.282 or 241. It was further observed by the trial Court in its judgment 18.07.2005 that the plaintiﬀs did not ﬁle any rejoinder to the written statement and they also did not take out any permission to localize the schedule land and, therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the plaintiﬀs. The suit was dismissed inter alia on the ground that the plaintiﬀs failed to discharge the burden of localizing their land with the help of a surveyor. The plaintiﬀs ﬁled an appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Additional District Judge, Khammam. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiﬀs ﬁled I.A.No.2888 of 2006 seeking appointment of advocate-commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule land and also to localize the same with the help of a qualiﬁed surveyor. Though the said petition was ﬁled in the year 2006, it was kept pending for over three years and the impugned order came to be dismissed by observing that the physical features of 2005 cannot be ascertained in the year 2009 and the purpose of appointment of commissioner was available in the year 2005 but not in 2009. Aggrieved by same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. Firstly, it is to be noted that the application was necessitated in view of the adverse inference drawn by the trial Court observing that the petitioners-plaintiﬀs failed to discharge the burden of identifying and localizing the land with the help of a surveyor. In fact, Ex.A-17 report of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer would go to show that on his directions the matter was referred to Deputy Inspector of Survey, Palvancha to conduct a detailed survey and submit a report to identify the actual physical extents of Sy.No.241 government land and Sy.No.282 and the Deputy Inspector of Survey submitted his report along with a location sketch wherein he stated that Sy.No.241 is a government land and Sy.No.282 is separated from Sy.No.241 by Murredu vagu and as such both are distinct and separate items without any diﬃculty for localization in view of Murredu vagu passing between two survey numbers. The local map furnished by the Deputy Inspector of Survey also would go to show that Murredu vagu is situate in between Sy.Nos.241 and 282. Thus, the location of the land from the two survey numbers would admit easy veriﬁcation. In fact, the plaintiﬀs have produced Ex.A-17 in support of their contention that the government has no land whatsoever in Sy.No.282 and it is a patta land and it is clearly distinguishable from the government land in Sy.No.241. Without considering the said document and without making any reference to the said report furnished by the Deputy Inspector of Survey together with location map, the trial Court dismissed the suit, observing that the plaintiﬀs did not seek appointment of an advocate-commissioner for localization of the suit land. The plaintiﬀs, therefore, ﬁled the application I.A.No.2888 of 2006 during the pendency of the appeal for the said purpose. Though the said application was ﬁled in the year 2006, shortly after filing of the appeal, the same came to be disposed of in the year 2009. The observation of the Additional District Judge that the physical features which were available in 2005 cannot be ascertained in the year 2009 is irrelevant. Admittedly, Murredu vagu is in existence even now and is situate in between Sy.Nos.241 and 282. The petitioners are seeking appointment of advocate- commissioner mainly for the purpose of localizing the schedule land in Sy.No.282 with the help of a qualiﬁed surveyor and, of course, also for noting the physical features. The respondents do not suffer any prejudice if the advocate-commissioner is appointed to localize the land with the help of a qualiﬁed surveyor because the report and location map prepared by Deputy Inspector of Survey itself would show whether the two lands in the two survey numbers are distinct and separate with Murredu vagu ﬂowing in between. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are constrained to ﬁle the application because the trial Court has drawn an adverse inference for not ﬁling the application for appointment of a commissioner during the pendency of the suit and without making any reference to the report and plan furnished by the Deputy Inspector of Survey. 5. It is well settled that whenever there is any dispute regarding the identity of the land and its location, it is just and desirable that the advocate- commissioner is appointed to localize the land with the help of a qualiﬁed surveyor so that the real dispute between the parties can be resolved in an eﬀective and comprehensive manner. The suit being one for declaration of title and for injunction, the appointment of an advocate-commissioner for the purpose prayed for would certainly assist the Court in arriving at proper and effective adjudication of the real dispute between the parties. The plaintiﬀs cannot, therefore, be deprived of the opportunity of getting the land identiﬁed and localized by the advocate-commissioner with the help of a qualiﬁed surveyor, especially in the backdrop of the observations made by the trial Court drawing adverse inference against the plaintiﬀs for not ﬁling such an application during trial. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order, dismissing the application, is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The learned Additional District Judge is directed to appoint an advocate-Commissioner to localize the plaint schedule land with the aid of a qualiﬁed surveyor with reference to the relevant documents and revenue records and also note the physical features thereof, and ﬁx appropriate remuneration payable to the advocate-Commissioner. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th November, 2011 Lrkm.