Ran Singh and Others vs Jagir Singh Others

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

Order of appointment of a revenue officer as local commissioner for ascertaining actual location of the property in dispute by demarcation vide impugned order dated 6.10.2014, forms genesis of this revision petition by the plaintiffs. Citing Sk. Sajid Hossain v. M/s. General Industries Corporation and others, 2011 (2) I.C.C. 762 , Syed. Mushtatque Ahmad Syed. Ismail and Others Vs. Syed Ashique Ali Khan Haidar Ali, and Ashok Kumar Patel and Others Vs. Ram Niranjan Dubey and Others, , Counsel for the petitioner-defendants has urged that the court cannot delegate its essential functions to determine the question of possession which is to be proved by the parties by their independent evidence.

In the present case, the question is not of possession simpliciter. Plaintiffs claim themselves to be in established possession of khasra No. 26 whereas the defendants claim themselves to be in possession of khasra No. 318. Admittedly, both the khasra numbers adjoin each other. The trial court, taking into consideration each and every aspect, came to a firm conclusion that the main controversy in the present suit is of the boundary of the property of the parties and this matter can be clinched and decided effectively by the court only by appointing some local commissioner from the revenue side to demarcate the suit property so that the factum of encroachment may come to light.

In short, the court itself felt the necessity of appointment of local commissioner to arrive at actual location of the khasra numbers involved in the litigation. In the circumstances when the court itself has found appointment of local commissioner necessary to visit the spot and so as to report about the encroachment, if any, made by either of the parties by demarcating the two khasra numbers in presence of parties/their representatives, there is nothing bad in the said order. Rather, in matters of boundary disputes, appointment of local commissioner is of great help and is invariably to be resorted to in terms of Part M of Chapter-I of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, Volume-1, reference to which has also been made in the impugned order.

Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to convince this Court as to how this order in any way affects the rights of the petitioner-defendants or would cause prejudice to them in any way. The revision petition having no merit, is dismissed.