Back
2002 Supreme(All) 465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. N. Srivastava, J.
AMAR NATH - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, MEERUT - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 8340 Of 1983
Decided On : 04/04/2002
In cases of serious dispute over land identity, a survey commission should be issued to establish the plot's location to avoid miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
Survey Commission - Dispute over Land Location - The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the prescribed authority to decide the application to issue a survey commission afresh with specific directions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the issuance of a survey commission to ascertain the actual location of land in dispute, which was rejected by the District Judge. The petitioner argued that the property vests in the civil court, while the respondents claimed it belongs to the Municipal Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a complete non-application of mind in rejecting the application for a survey commission and emphasized the need for reasons in support of a conclusion. It referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that serious disputes regarding land identity require the establishment of identity through a survey commission to avoid miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The main issues were whether the application for issuing a survey commission was maintainable before the prescribed authority and whether there was a serious dispute over the identity of the land that necessitated its location for adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling that in cases of serious dispute over land identity, a survey commission should be issued to establish the plot's location to avoid miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. The prescribed authority was directed to decide the application to issue a survey commission afresh with specific directions.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri V. K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Mukherji, learned counsel for the respondents.
( 2 ) THE impugned orders in the present writ petition are Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition by which the application for issuing the commission to ascertain the actual location of land in dispute was rejected and the District Judge, Meerut, dismissed the appeal preferred against the order dated 18. 5. 1983 and 24. 5. 1983.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, only dispute is whether the property vests in the civil court or with the Municipal Board. According to the petitioner, he is keeping his stall on the land of the municipal Board and is paying licence fees till now. The petitioner further states that unless actual location is made by issuing the commission, the land cannot be located and no proper adjudication could be made in proceedings.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment in JT 2000 (7) SC 379. The supreme Court has laid down that in case there is a serious dispute relating to the identity of the land, survey commission to locate the plot could be issued and refusal to issue survey commission may result in serious miscarriage of justice. The prescribed authority did not pass a reasoned order while deciding the application filed by the petitioner to issue survey commission.
( 5 ) LEARNED standing counsel did not dispute the proposition of law laid down by Supreme Court but states that the law declared by Supreme Court case is applicable in the suit and not in the proceedings before the prescribed authority.
( 6 ) THE order of prescribed authority runs as follows :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .
( 7 ) I perused both the impugned orders. Both the Impugned orders do not. contain any reason of the rejection of application to issue survey commission.
( 8 ) AFTER considering the record, court finds that there is a complete non-application of mind while deciding the application to issue survey commission.
( 9 ) THE application for issuing the survey commission is to be considered and decided in accordance with law. Order should contain reasons in support of a conclusion.
( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in Shreepat v. Rajendra Prasad and Ors. , JT 2000 (7) SC 379, has laid down the law relating issuing the survey commission, which runs as follows :
"in our opinion, this contention is correct. Since there was a serious dispute with regard to the area and boundaries of the land in question, especially with regard to its identity, the courts below, before decreeing the suit should have got the identity established by issuing a survey commission to locate the plot in dispute and find out whether it formed part of Khasra No. 257/3 or Khasra No. 257/1. This having not been done has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. We consequently allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the courts below as affirmed by the High Court and remand the case to the trial court to dispose of the suit afresh in the light of the observation made above and in accordance with law. "
( 11 ) AUTHORITY below have not decided any thing at all so far, as the controversy raised by petitioner in his application to issue survey commission. The Authorities are required to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by recording reasons.
( 12 ) IN view of the facts stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 18. 5. 1983 and 24. 5. 1983 Annexures-7 and 8 respectively to the petition are quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to decide the application to issue survey commission afresh with following directions :
"1. Whether any application for issuing survey commission is maintainable before the prescribed authority under the provision of the V. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act, 1972 and Rule framed thereunder. 2. Whether there is any serious dispute of identity of the la
