Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Court Authority for Land Encroachment Investigation - The court can issue a commission for local investigation or measurement of encroachment at the final stage of a suit, especially when factual determination of encroachment extent is contested or unclear. Under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, courts have the power to appoint commissioners to conduct such investigations to elucidate disputes regarding land encroachment ["Sahi Ram VS Asha Rani - Himachal Pradesh"], ["S. Ramalingeshwarasharma S/o Late S. Venkatsubramanya Chainlu vs S.L. Savithri W/o M.R. Sridhar - Karnataka"], ["Harekrishna Roy Chowdhury, son of late Dhirendra Ch. Roy Chowdhury VS Debdas Roy Chowdhury, son of late Dhirendra Ch. Roy Chowdhury - Tripura"].
Necessity of Commission for Land Measurement - Several cases emphasize that proving encroachment often requires an investigation by an authorized commissioner, such as a survey or demarcation, to establish the extent of encroachment accurately. Courts have directed commissions to measure land, identify boundaries, and prepare maps, especially when the encroachment is disputed or the land's boundaries are unclear ["LAL BAHADUR TIWARI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ROOM NO. 2) - Allahabad"], ["H. P. Nagaraja S/o Puttaiah Gowda VS Channappa Gowda S/o Ramaiah Gowda - Karnataka"], ["Harekrishna Roy Chowdhury, son of late Dhirendra Ch. Roy Chowdhury VS Debdas Roy Chowdhury, son of late Dhirendra Ch. Roy Chowdhury - Tripura"].
Timing of Commission Appointment - Courts generally hold that appointment of a commission is permissible at the final stage of a suit, particularly during the final hearing or before passing final orders, to ensure precise determination of encroached areas. The courts have also noted that conducting such investigations earlier may cause delays; thus, they are often ordered at the concluding stages to avoid unnecessary prolongation ["Sahi Ram VS Asha Rani - Himachal Pradesh"], ["SNEHI MANDAL CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY, BOMBAY - Gujarat"].
Limitations and Conditions - Courts have clarified that commissions should be ordered only when necessary, and the parties' objections or the sufficiency of existing evidence are considered. Moreover, if the parties have already adduced sufficient evidence or if the land boundaries are undisputed, a commission may not be warranted ["H. P. Nagaraja S/o Puttaiah Gowda VS Channappa Gowda S/o Ramaiah Gowda - Karnataka"], ["Jageshwar Yadav son of Late Faudi Yadav vs Hari Nandan Yadav, son of Late Shiv Nandan Yadav - Jharkhand"].
Specific Case Examples - In cases where the extent of encroachment involves minor differences (e.g., 3 feet), courts have still authorized commissions to resolve factual disputes, as seen in cases where the width of pathways or roads is contested. These investigations help establish the precise encroachment extent, which is crucial for granting relief ["H. P. Nagaraja S/o Puttaiah Gowda VS Channappa Gowda S/o Ramaiah Gowda - Karnataka"], ["Jageshwar Yadav son of Late Faudi Yadav vs Hari Nandan Yadav, son of Late Shiv Nandan Yadav - Jharkhand"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Based on the cited cases, a commission for land encroachment investigation can indeed be ordered at the final argument stage of a suit. Courts recognize the importance of accurate measurement and demarcation in disputes involving encroachment of even a few feet, such as 3 feet. The authority is grounded in procedural provisions (Order XXVI, Rule 9 CPC), and such commissions are typically ordered to aid in fact-finding when the dispute's resolution depends on precise boundary determination. Therefore, in the scenario where there is a dispute over a 3-foot encroachment, a court can validly direct a commission to investigate and measure the land at the final stage of the suit.
Land disputes, especially those involving encroachment, can be contentious and fact-heavy. Imagine you're in the midst of a civil suit, reaching the stage of final arguments, and a key issue remains: Did the defendant encroach 3 feet onto your property? At-the stage of final argument of the suit can a commission for land encroachment investigation be done? This question arises frequently in boundary disputes, where precise measurements matter.
In this post, we delve into the legal nuances under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, particularly Order 26 Rule 9, examining when courts may appoint a commissioner for local investigation or survey—even during final arguments. We'll draw from key judgments and principles to provide clarity. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Courts generally prefer local investigation or survey to establish encroachment, especially when facts are disputed ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195. Appointment of a Commissioner for site inspection or survey is justified when the matter cannot be effectively determined from existing records and evidence ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195Hari Ram VS Jyoti Prasad - 2011 1 Supreme 537.
The power stems from Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, which allows courts to order local investigations for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. As noted in one case, In a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession due to alleged encroachment into the land of the plaintiff, one of the methods to find out as to whether or not there is encroachment is to have the local investigation done by a competent Commissioner Lalti Devi VS Bindu Bihari Verma - 2022 Supreme(All) 709NEW MEENA SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD. LKO VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CT. NO. 2 LKO - 2016 Supreme(All) 601.
However, this isn't a blanket permission. The court's discretion hinges on necessity and sufficiency of existing evidence ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195.
Legal procedures favor conducting a survey or local investigation when there is ambiguity regarding boundaries, extent of encroachment, or disputed facts that cannot be conclusively determined from pleadings and evidence ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195. For instance:- In Ponnusamy v Salem Vaiyapamalat Hangamar Sangam, the court justified local investigation to resolve whether constructions encroached upon neighboring land ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195.- Courts emphasize that such steps are essential in boundary disputes ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195.
From other precedents:- It is clear from the contention of the defendant in her written statement as well as Report of the Commissioner that the defendant has encroached on the 5 feet passage and built a house on it SMT VALLIAMMAL vs SHRI P BALASUBRAMANI - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40716.- Ownership and possession claims require substantiation of evidence on encroachment and boundaries SRI. ZIYAULLA vs ADEEBA BANO - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24102.
The timing of the investigation is crucial; such procedures are typically conducted before final orders or during interlocutory stages, not during final arguments unless necessary Indira Chhabildas Jadhav VS Vasaram Dhuma VanjariQ - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1521. Generally, investigations are ordered at an interlocutory stage or before final judgment ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195. The court in Mahendranath v Purnanda highlighted that local investigation should be conducted early to inform parties and facilitate fair adjudication ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195.
Yet, courts retain flexibility. Powers under Order 26 Rule 9 can be exercised at any stage, but for limited purpose—when demarcation has already been done, there would be no need for fresh demarcation by appointing Commissioner Shivnarayan VS Shyamlal - 2023 Supreme(MP) 183. While ideally pre-judgment, courts may permit them during final arguments if evidence is inadequate ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195.
Key caveat: If evidence on record suffices, further investigation may be dispensed with ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195. In one judgment, the court declined a survey because existing evidence resolved the issue ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195. Similarly, A Commissioner for local investigation is deputed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC when the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper Lalti Devi VS Bindu Bihari Verma - 2022 Supreme(All) 709.
In GERMINE LAKRA vs MICHEL BHUT KUMAR, issues of encroachment led to commissioner appointments to ascertain facts, underscoring judicial discretion GERMINE LAKRA vs MICHEL BHUT KUMAR.
Due process requires notice to parties and opportunity to participate Muthammal VS District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2180. Any survey must occur with interested parties present Muthammal VS District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2180. Courts direct reports after giving parties a chance Muthammal VS District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2180.
Additional insights:- Refusal of the request of the party to appoint a Commissioner under O. 26, R. 9 CPC to make a local investigation in an appropriate case amounts to failure of exercise of jurisdiction Premlata Jain VS Mandakini Gupta - 2011 Supreme(MP) 581.- Parties must get notice; e.g., in easement cases, prior deeds affect rights unless surrendered Latika Sinha vs Kakali Das - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 326.
These illustrate courts balance efficiency with justice.
For Parties: Request early; object if dilatory. Provide supporting docs like sale deeds SRI. ZIYAULLA vs ADEEBA BANO - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24102.
Use commissioner judiciously: Not for evidence collection alone Indira Chhabildas Jadhav VS Vasaram Dhuma VanjariQ - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1521.
In summary, while courts may order land encroachment investigations during final arguments under exceptional need, they typically require pre-final clarity. Existing evidence often suffices, promoting efficiency. For your 3-foot dispute, early application strengthens position. Always seek professional counsel to navigate these intricacies.
References:1. ANNAPPA MESTHA VS MUTAYYAACHARIQ - 2002 0 Supreme(Kar) 195: Survey necessity and timing.2. Hari Ram VS Jyoti Prasad - 2011 1 Supreme 537: Due process in investigations.3. Indira Chhabildas Jadhav VS Vasaram Dhuma VanjariQ - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1521: Limits at final stages.4. Additional cases as cited inline.
#LandEncroachment #CourtCommissioner #PropertyLaw
It is alleged that the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 encroached 31 feet of land on the east side of the plot and 5 feet on the west side and in this regard, a notice was issued by the Society to the plaintiff to remove the illegal encroachment and construction on it. ... On the other hand, the Society has alleged that the plaintiff alone had encroached the land. Consequently, it was imperative for th....
Whether the plaintiff is co-owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether defendant is interfering in the suit land in an illegal manner? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. ... There is no material on record to demonstrate that the plaintiff, at any stage, has approached the Revenue Authorities, for demarcation of the #HL_ST....
8.Whether the notice u/s 407 of West Bengal Municipal Act 1993 is essential ? 9.Whether the defendant encroached land of B schedule property? ... 3.Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties ? 4. Whether the suit is barred under the principle of estoppel, weaver and acquicense ? ... To prove the point of encroachment of the B schedule property the plaintiffs....
(2) Does he further proves that the defendant has encroached the ‘B’ schedule land? (3) Whether the defendant proves that, he has perfected title over the property of the plaintiff if encroached, by adverse possession? ... The points for consideration raised by the First Appellate Court are only with regard to whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and in the year 19....
It is clear from the contention of the defendant in her written statement as well as Report of the Commissioner that the defendant has encroached on the 5 feet passage and built a house on it and therefore answer this issue in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff. ... ISSUES 7, 8 AND 9: In view of my finding on issues 1 to 3, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The plaintiff has satisf....
According to the plaintiff, the defendants/respondents has encroached over some part of the land of his ownership. ... According to the plaintiff he purchased the land vide registered sale deed Ext-P-2 from Deen Dayal and the suit property is a piece of that land but according to the defendant it is part of the property which he purchased from Sudhir Shrivastava vide registered sale deed Ext-D-3. ... Shri Sameer Saxena, learned coun....
(iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that after filing of the suit defendant has encroached 12 X 27½ feet in the northern portion of the suit schedule property as contended in para-3 of the plaint? ... The vital issue as to whether the road measures 10 feet or 20 feet was essential for deciding the encroachment of 12 x 27½ feet by the ....
defendant has encroached the suit schedule property and Issue No.4 is whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession 6 of the ‘B’ schedule property ... land by them as per Para 3 of the plaint. ... Issue No.1 is as to whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner of ‘A’ schedule property and that the ‘B’ schedule forms part of the ‘A’ schedule property and is....
Whether impugned decree for demolition of structure is vitiated as the court below has failed to conclusively determine the factum and extent of alleged encroachment on suit land and thereby ordering the ascertainment of encroachment, if any, to be determined by way of demarcation at the execution stage ... (c) The defendant constructed a path over the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 52 and a room on Khasra No. 54 measuring 10 #H....
property and to ascertain as to whether there is any encroachment over the suit encroachment has been raised and therefore, in order to ascertain the the trial and on the basis of the pleading alleging encroachment over the land in question by the defendant ... no.1 over the plaintiff land for making injunction to stop construction or other work in the suit normal rule for issue a #H....
In a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession due to alleged encroachment into the land of the plaintiff, one of the methods to find out as to whether or not there is encroachment is to have the local investigation done by a competent Commissioner. 30. A Commissioner for local investigation is deputed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC when the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or for ascertaining any other matter mentioned in the said rule. The object of local i....
PW-1 would depose that there is a 6 feet cart track situate on the western side of his property. Admittedly 4 feet East West measurement is depreciated in plaintiff’s land. Hence, it is necessary to find whether the defendant has encroached the 4 feet of land in plaintiff’s property. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff has himself examined as PW-1.
In a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession due to alleged encroachment into the land of the plaintiff, one of the methods to find out as to whether or not there is encroachment is to have the local investigation done by a competent Commissioner.
Order passed by the learned appellate court reveals that both have purchased their respective land from the same plot and the original recorded owner is one Dhobi Charan Sahu. While the plaintiff pleads that a stripe of his purchased land adjoining to the eastern side boundary line of defendants purchased land has been encroached and the dimension of that encroached portion is 3.5 feet x 57 feet the defendants deny to have encroached that portion of the suit land taking the specific stand that it is a part of their purchased land and there has been no encroachment as alleged.#HL_EN....
Refusal of the request of the party to appoint a Commissioner under O. 26, R. 9 CPC to make a local investigation in an appropriate case amounts to failure of exercise of jurisdiction vested In it. The Court cannot prevent a party from adducing the best evidence, if such evidence can be gathered with the help of a Commissioner. "In a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession due to alleged encroachment into the land of plaintiff, one of the methods to find out as to whether or not there is encroachment is to have the local investigation don....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
