The Local Commissioner appointed by the Court for demarcation is not authorized to comment on or make findings with respect to the correctness of the revenue record.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 27.11.2020, in terms whereof, learned Trial Court has been pleased to set aside the report of the Local Commissioner, inter alia, by holding that the Local Commissioner is not to give any finding with respect to correctness of the revenue record while carrying out demarcation under the order of the Court.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents and after carefully going through the order passed by the learned Court below, this Court does not finds any infirmity therein.

3. In terms of the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, a Local Commissioner is appointed, inter alia, where a Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. Herein, on an application filed by the plaintiffs for demarcation of the land in issue, learned Trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner, who submitted a reports dated 21.01.2020 and 20.02.2020, Relevant portion of report dated 20.02.2020 reads as under:

“I have also perused the Aks musabi of both the Mohals and compared the shape at adjoining boundary of both Mohals and found that there is a bend on the corner at point K (17 Karam+73 Karams) on the boundary of MohalBatruda Patiala, but there is no sharp bend in the aks musabi of Mohal Nahalwin at same point K (17 Karam+72 Karam) as shown on map of Batruda Patialan”

4. Objections were filed against the reports by the respondents herein, inter alia, on the ground that the Local Commissioner had no business to comment on the record of rights prepared by the Competent Authority, which stood finalised, as was done by the Local Commissioner and as the Local Commissioner was directed to demarcate the suit land as per the Musabi and by following the instructions of the Financial Commissioner, the unnecessary comments made qua the revenue record and the findings returned qua encroachment of 6 Karmas of land were self-contradictory.

5. By way of the impugned order, learned Trial Court set aside the demarcation reports, i.e. Ext.LC.3/A and Ext.LC.3/B by returning the following observations:

“13 I have gone through report Ext. LC.3/C wherein the Local Commissioner has opined; for necessary correction on the map with respect to Karukans. He also opined that Aks Musabi of both the Mohals and compared the shape at adjoining boundary of both Mohals and found that there is a bend on the corner at point K (17 Karam +73 Karams) on the boundary of Mohal Batruda Patiala, but there is no sharp bend in the aks musabi of Mohal Nahalwin at sarne point K (17Karam + 72 Karam) as shown on map of Batruda Patialan"

14. In the crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff LC.3 admitted that demarcation is carried out as per Aks Musabi and Karukans mentioned therein. He also admitted that in case the Karukans as per Aks Musabi taken then there is encroachment of defendant, but there is tatima to that effect. The Local Commissioner has to act as per the document and not to give any finding with respect to correction of revenue record. In case the revenue record is liable to be corrected, then both the parties are within their right resort before the authorities for the necessary correction.

15. In view of details discussion made herein above in the light of judicial pronouncement cited above, the report Ext. LC.3/A and Ext. LC.3/D cannot be relied upon. The same are setaside.”

6. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court that the Local Commissioner was not having any authority or jurisdiction to either make any comment or return any finding with respect to correctness of the revenue record. When the Local Commissioner was appointed by the Court on an application filed by one of the parties and the order was clear and specific, as to what all the Local Commissioner was