Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Fateh Deep Singh, J.
Sitaram - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Council - Respondent
CR No. 5825 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-02-2020
Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate, for the Respondents
The appointment of a Local Commissioner for on-site demarcation by a revenue officer with adequate understanding of the intricacies of demarcation is necessary for a judicious adjudication of intricate property disputes.
Headnote:
Local Commissioner - Property Dispute - The court appointed a Local Commissioner to demarcate the property in a dispute between the plaintiff and the Municipal Council. The appointment was deemed necessary for a judicious adjudication of the intricate dispute, as it required on-site demarcation by a revenue officer with adequate understanding of the intricacies of demarcation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Council, seeking to restrain them from interfering with the plaintiff's property and challenging a notice to demolish construction. The Municipal Council applied for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate the property, which was allowed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of a Local Commissioner was necessary for a judicious adjudication of the dispute, as it required on-site demarcation by a revenue officer with adequate understanding of the intricacies of demarcation. The court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings necessitating interference.
Issues: Dispute over property ownership and construction, appointment of Local Commissioner, challenge to notice for demolition
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of a Local Commissioner was deemed necessary for a judicious adjudication of the intricate property dispute, as it required on-site demarcation by a revenue officer with adequate understanding of the intricacies of demarcation.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Fateh Deep Singh, J. - Then plaintiff Sitaram filed against Municipal Council and others a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering, dispossessing the plaintiff and creating any obstacle in the use of property measuring 53 square yards and 12 inches detailed in the head note of the plaint accompanied by the site plan and further sought to challenge notice No.53/B.l dated 28.07.2017 issued by the Municipal Council asking the plaintiff to demolish construction thereon.
2. It was during the course of pendency of the suit an application was moved by the Municipal Council for appointment of Local Commissioner to enable the Court to have correct assessment of the situation at the site and ensure demarcation of the property if it falls within the ownership of the plaintiff or the Municipal Council. The Court vide impugned orders dated 04.09.2019 allowed the application. The same is subject matter of challenge in this revision.
3. Upon hearing Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for the respondents and perusing the records of the case.
4. The petitioner claims that the property in respect of which alleged notice has been issued belongs to the plaintiff (present petitioner) while it is the claim of the respondent Municipal Council that the same vests in them. Moreover, there is claim and counter-claim of construction on the said spot on which the parties are at loggerheads. The Court has simply appointed Tehsildar as Local Commissioner to visit the spot and demarcate the property after notice to the parties and submit his report including regarding encroachment, if any.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring about what prima facie evidence has come about in their favour which did not necessitate appointment of a Local Commissioner and was a simplicitor to create evidence for the respondent Council. For judicious adjudication of such an intricate dispute which is not supported by any documentary evidence and is a matter which can be comprehensively dealt with only after demarcation at the site and that too by a revenue officer having adequate understanding of the intricacies of demarcation, the Court would be in a position to have right assessment of the situation. Thus, this Court does not feel that there is any illegality or perversity in the impugned findings necessitating interference by this Court. There being no merit the present petition stands dismissed.
