Identity of Land Is the Core Issue — Without Its Resolution, Litigation Cannot Reach Logical End: Telangana High Court

Telangana High Court delivered a significant ruling reaffirming that in any suit involving claims of title and possession, precise identification and demarcation of the disputed property is indispensable to the administration of justice. Setting aside a trial court’s order that had denied re-survey, Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that the failure of the Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant as per the court's mandate necessitated re-entrustment of the commission, especially when the entire case hinges upon the identity of land claimed by the plaintiffs and allegedly encroached upon by the government and private institutions.

"When the Advocate Commissioner Fails to Execute Directions in the Warrant, Court Must Step In": Revisional Power Under Article 227 Justified

The revision arose from the dismissal of an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking re-entrustment of a commission warrant for fresh survey of plots located within the vast expanse of Jubilee Hills Cooperative Housing Society layout in Shaikpet, Hyderabad. The trial court had refused re-survey citing the impracticality of surveying the entire 1398 acres, much of which is now developed and occupied. However, the High Court took a contrary view, stressing that when a commissioner fails to adhere to specific judicial directions — such as collecting allotment records, verifying survey boundaries, and demarcating encroachments — the very purpose of the commission gets frustrated.

Justice Narsing Rao observed: "Unless and until the property is identified, the question of bringing the quietus to the litigation would not happen… the entire litigation would not come to a logical end."

"Survey Cannot Be Done on Assumptions and Ocular Indications of Parties": High Court Criticizes Commissioner’s Casual Execution of Warrant

The Advocate Commissioner, appointed on a prior application, had conducted a partial survey using DGPS and ETS machinery but failed to fully measure or demarcate the plots of land in dispute. He admitted that the entire 1398-acre area of the Jubilee Hills Society could not be surveyed due to the presence of hundreds of homes, institutions, and compound walls, making it practically unfeasible.

However, the Court found that the commissioner’s failure to even attempt alternate methods of land identification, such as collecting layout plans, allotment orders, or using digital tools like Google Maps or superimposition techniques, amounted to non-compliance with court directions.

“Except identifying the land basing on the identification by the parties and measuring the said land, nothing has been done as per the order passed by the learned Judge in the Commissioner Warrant,” the Court remarked.

"Government Cannot Evade Responsibility in Identifying Its Own Allotments and Resumed Land": High Court Pulls Up State and Revenue Officials

One of the critical observations in the judgment pertained to the failure of the State and Revenue Authorities to provide relevant records, allotment orders, layout maps, and demarcations. The High Court stressed that the government has a duty to assist in identifying resumed or excess land, especially when it had allotted 1398 acres to the Jubilee Hills Society, 4.05 acres to the Income Tax Department, and 2 acres to the Blue Cross Society, with certain portions resumed or found to be in excess possession.

Justice Narsing Rao held: “The Government has not placed material before the Advocate Commissioner as to who is in possession of the said additional Ac.0.25 guntas of land… It is also the duty of the Government to see that the said lands which are allotted and possession has been delivered to them are properly identified.”

He noted with concern that neither the excess land in the possession of Blue Cross Society nor the resumed land from the Income Tax Department (Ac.0.29 guntas) was located or identified.

"Commissioner Report That Ignores Sale Deeds, Allotment Orders, and Layouts Cannot Be Relied Upon": High Court Emphasizes Evidentiary Compliance

The Court was equally critical of the Advocate Commissioner for failing to incorporate sale deeds, sanctioned plans, and historical records such as the One-Man Commission Report under G.O.Ms.No.604 dated 10.11.1988, which could have aided the identification exercise.

“The learned Advocate Commissioner did not conduct the survey as per the warrant and did not verify, identify or localize or demarcate the plot pertaining to plaintiff as he was directed by the Court,” the Court observed.

It further held that, “the commissioner has not placed any such evidence to show what steps he has taken to collect the allotment letters, layout plans and documents from Jubilee Hills Cooperative Housing Society.”

"Practical Difficulties Cannot Override Legal Necessities in Title Disputes": High Court Allows Civil Revision and Directs Time-Bound Re-Survey

Rejecting the trial court's conclusion that surveying a vast and urbanized layout is impractical, the High Court emphasized that technological advancements now allow for alternate methods such as satellite mapping, digital overlays, and historical verification.

The Court directed that the warrant be re-entrusted to the same or another Senior Advocate Commissioner with a fresh mandate:

"On such re-entrustment, the Advocate Commissioner shall inspect the suit schedule properties as directed... identify the said properties of the respondents with the help of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records... and also identify the land which is resumed by the Government from respondent No.3 and land which is in excessive possession of the respondent No.4… and demarcate them."

The Court also instructed that “an alternate method of survey may be by way of Google map survey or any other mode by using latest technology and also may be by way of super impose of plans.”

All relevant government departments were directed to provide full cooperation and submit their layout plans, maps, and allotment documents.

“Re-Survey Must Be Completed Within One Month”: Court Sets Deadline to Avoid Further Delay

In order to prevent further stagnation of the suit, which has been pending since 2009, the High Court ordered that the Advocate Commissioner must file a consolidated report, incorporating previous reports and the fresh re-survey, within one month from the date of warrant re-entrustment. It also directed all parties to submit their work memos and maps to facilitate the process.

Rebuking the trial court for failing to address the real issue, the High Court held that “Refusal on the part of the trial Court to address the core question involved is an unfortunate failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Court.”

A Ruling That Reasserts the Centrality of Land Identification in Civil Title Suits

The Telangana High Court’s judgment delivers a clear message — land disputes cannot be resolved in abstraction; when identity of land is in issue, courts must ensure every procedural safeguard and technological aid is utilized to ascertain the truth. The Court’s reliance on Article 227 of the Constitution to correct a manifest procedural error underlines its role as a constitutional watchdog over the fairness of civil adjudication.

In cases involving overlapping allotments, resumed lands, or excess possession by public authorities, survey, mapping, and documentation become judicial tools — not just administrative formalities.

As Justice Narsing Rao aptly concluded, “The entire litigation would not come to a logical end unless the said lands are properly identified.”

Date of Judgment: 13 October 2025