CRP 287/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.J. Sarma, learned counsel representing the respondents. By this application, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by t he learned trial Court on 11.7.2011, whereby the prayer for appointment of Amin Commission for local investigation was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Dag No.331 and 332 wer e amalgamated and new dag has come up due to amalgamation of two dags, but in th e impugned order, the learned trial Court did not discuss the effect of amalgama tion of the aforesaid two dags and the intricacy in identification thereof. It appears that this aspect of the matter was not discussed in the impugned orde r by the learned trial Court while considering the prayer for appointment of Ami n Commission. I propose to dispose of this petition with a direction to the learned tr ial Court to reconsider as to whether in the changed circumstances i.e. the amal gamation of Dag No.331 and 332, Amin Commission for local investigation is justified, under the provisions of the law , to effectively identify the respective dags. Revision petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order.