Nanhe Lal Vs Basudeo And Another

Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227, 3132 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 10, 2015

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3132 of
2015
Petitioner :- Nanhe Lal
Respondent :- Basudeo And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.B. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petitioner is defendant in Original Suit No. 141 of 1989
instituted by the plaintiff-respondent. Therein, the plaintiffrespondent
moved an application for getting the suit property
surveryed. The trial court allowed the application and
appointed a Survey Commissioner. In pursuance thereof,
the Survey Commissioner inspected the site and submitted a
report dated 21.12.2012. The trial court by an order dated
17.7.2013 confirmed the survey report subject to the
evidence of the parties. Aggrieved the said order, the
plaintiff-respondent filed civil revision no. 80 of 2013, which
has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Court
no.1, Pilibhit by judgement and order dated 16.4.2015. The
revisional court has held that the report of the Survey
Commissioner is manifestly incorrect as it has been
submitted without locating the fixed point. The revisional
court further held that the survey report should have been
either confirmed or rejected. The trial court erred in passing
the order that it stands confirmed subject to the evidence of
the parties. A further direction has been issued to the trial
court to get the commission executed by an expert agency.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that at
the time of survey, no fixed point was located. He further
admitted that the report has been submitted without
identifying the fixed point. However, his contention is that the
suit land is surrounded on all sides by abadi of four different
villages and therefore, it is not possible to determine the
fixed point. In the opinion of the court, on such ground, the
order of the revisional court cannot be held to be illegal. In
case, it is not possible to locate the fixed point, it shall be
open to the petitioner to point out the said fact before the
trial court so that when fresh survey report is obtained, in
pursuance of the direction given by the revisional court by
order dated 16.4.2015, the trial court before confirming
/rejecting the report of the Survey Commissioner, may take
such objection into consideration.
With these observations, the petition stands rejected.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 10.7.2015
skv