Wednesday 18 April 2012

Dispute about boundry can be adjudicated by TILR

Dispute regarding boundrycan be best adjudicated by taking asistance of experts like TILR who on mesurement can express his opinion. It cannot be said that TILR is appointed as commissioner to collect evidence.
Bombay High Court
Habibkhan vs. Waman
Citation : 2012 (2) Mh. L. J 541                                                                                
DATE :  08/07/2011
1. The present respondent/original plaintiff has
filed Suit for removal of encroachment.  During the
pendency   of   Suit,   has   filed   an   application   for
appointment   of   Commissioner   i.e.   T.I.L.R.   to
measure  the  land  of  the  plaintiff  as  well as  the
defendant.     The   trial   Court   allowed   the   said
application.   Aggrieved thereby, the present  Writ
Petition is filed. 

2. Mr. S.J.Salunke, the learned counsel for the
petitioner   vehemently   contended   that   the
Commissioner can not be appointed to collect the
evidence.  Perusal of the application shows that the
Commissioner is appointed only for the purpose of                                                                                2                                      WP 4947.2011
collecting evidence.   The plaintiff has to stand or
fall on his own feet and can not take the aid of the
Court   in   collecting   the   evidence.     The   learned
counsel   further   states   that   earlier   the   present
petitioners     had   filed   Suit   for   injunction   which
came   to   be   decreed,   in   which   the   present
respondents stated that there is no bandh between
the  land  of  the  plaintiff  and  the  defendant  and
now in the present case are coming forth with the
story   that   the   bandh   is   demolished   by   the
3. To   substantiate   the   contention   that   the
Commissioner can not be appointed to collect the
evidence,   the   learned   counsel   relies   on   the
Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court
in the case of Sanjay S/o Namdeo Khandare  V/s
Sahebrao   S/o   Kachru   Khandare   and   others
reported in 2001 (1) Bom.C.R. ­ 800.
4. The proposition that  the Commissioner can
not be appointed to collect the evidence, need not
be dilated.  But, in each and every case, it can not
be said that  the Commissioner  appointed by the
Court invoking its power U/s 75 read with Order
XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is for
collecting evidence.  In many cases, they are meant
for  the assistance of  the Court  in arriving  at  the                                                                                3                                      WP 4947.2011
just conclusion. 
5. The disputes  regarding  the boundaries  can
be best adjudicated by taking the assistance of the
experts such as the T.I.L.R., who on measurement
can express his opinion.  The Apex Court in a case
of Haryana Wakf Board V/s   Shanti Sarup and
others  reported in 2008 ( 8 ) SCC 671 and the
learned  Single  Judge  of  this  Court  in  a  case  of
Kolhapuri Bandu Lakade  V/s  Yellapa Chinappa
Lakade   [  since  deceased  ]   through  L.Rs. Puja
about  Pujari  Y.Lakade  and  others  reported  in
2011 ( 3 )   Mh.L.J. 348  have held that  in case
regarding boundaries and area, an expert  person
can   be   appointed   as   a   Commissioner   for
measurement   of   the   properties.     In   the   present
case, the plaintiff  has prayed for  appointment  of
Commissioner   to   measure   the   property   of   the
plaintiff as well as the defendant, which has been
6. The Judgment relied by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is of no avail in view of the fact
that   in   the   said   case,   the   Commissioner   was
appointed   to   inspect   the   spot   and   submit   the
report   about   the   actual   possession.     In   light   of
those facts, it was observed by this Court that the
Commissioner  could  not  be   appointed  to   gather                                                                                4                                      WP 4947.2011
evidence as to the possession. 
7. In   view   of   the   above   conspectus   of   the
matter, no error is committed by the Court below
while   passing   the   impugned   order.     The   Writ
Petition   as   such   is   dismissed,   however   with   no
order as to costs. 
                               [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]
KNP/WP 4947.2011
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment