In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court dismissed a petition filed by Nallagonda Laxmi and another, challenging the Sircilla District Court’s order that refused to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in a long-running land dispute. The bench, led by Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, held that the lower court’s decision was "proper, reasoned, and legally sound," and found no merit in interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The order, delivered on October 7, 2025, stems from Civil Revision Petition No. 779 of 2022, concerning agricultural lands in Marlapeta village, Rajanna-Sircilla district.
Background
The case began back in 2017, when the petitioners, Nallagonda Laxmi and her co-plaintiff, filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction over two pieces of agricultural land - one measuring about 2 acres and 15 guntas, and another 4 acres and 12 guntas. Later, the suit was amended to include recovery of possession, alleging that the respondents had encroached upon portions of their land.
In 2021, the petitioners moved an application before the trial court, requesting the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and note down the physical features of the disputed land. They alleged that the respondents were making illegal constructions and altering the nature of the property, which could "lead to multiplicity of litigation."
However, the trial court rejected their request in March 2022, stating that no credible evidence had been presented to support the claim of construction or encroachment.
Petitioners Arguments
Arguing before the High Court, the petitioners’ counsel contended that the trial court had "failed to exercise its discretion judiciously." He maintained that noting down physical features would not prejudice the respondents and could help establish the truth.
He cited several precedents, including Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup, M. Yadaiah vs. M. Chilkamma, and Mallikarjuna Srinivas Gupta vs. K. Sheshirekha, arguing that appointing a Commissioner to document the current state of disputed property often aids in fair adjudication.
"The court below dismissed the request without appreciating that such inspection only records the existing situation," the counsel said.
Respondents Stand
On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel opposed the plea, calling it a "tactical move to collect evidence." He pointed out that the petitioners had already completed their evidence as PWs 1 and 2, and only after that did they seek the Commissioner’s appointment.
He further argued that the land in question was purely agricultural, under cultivation for over two decades, leaving no scope for any new construction.
"The affidavit doesn’t even specify what construction they are alleging. This is a fishing expedition, not a legitimate request," he submitted.
Court's Observations
Justice Rao, after hearing both sides, emphasized the limited scope of Article 227, observing that it is meant only to ensure subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction.
"This supervisory power," the judge noted, "is to be used sparingly and only when there is grave injustice or perverse exercise of power."
The bench also analyzed the record and found that the petitioners evidence was already concluded, and the request for a Commissioner was filed thereafter - suggesting it was not made to assist the trial, but to fill evidentiary gaps.
Referring to a series of judgments cited by both parties, Justice Rao remarked:
"The cases relied on by the petitioners are not applicable here, as their affidavit is silent regarding what type of construction was allegedly being carried out."
He further quoted from earlier rulings, such as A. Meganathan vs. S. Ramalingam, where courts had held that an Advocate Commissioner "cannot be appointed to gather evidence for one party."
Court's Decision
Concluding the matter, the High Court held that the Sircilla trial court had rightly appreciated the facts and provided "cogent reasons" for denying the appointment of a Commissioner.
"No illegality or perversity is found in the trial court's order. The decision is in accordance with law," the bench declared.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 779 of 2022) was dismissed without costs, and all interim orders were vacated.
With this, the Telangana High Court reaffirmed that Commissioner appointments cannot be used as tools to collect fresh evidence once the trial process is underway - a reminder that procedural fairness must not become a tactical advantage.
Case Details: Nallagonda Laxmi vs. Bheemreddy Vijaya Laxmi
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition (CRP) No. 779 of 2022
Date of Judgment: 7 October, 2025
Counsel Representation
- For Petitioners: Advocate representing Nallagonda Laxmi (name not specified in document)
- For Respondents: Advocate for Bheemreddy Vijaya Laxmi (name not specified in document)
