1 W.P.No.6951/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6951 OF 2011. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.M.R.Sonwane, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who had filed suit for injunction and recovery of possession of an encroached area. By joint application of the plaintiff and the defendant, the TILR was appointed as a Court Commissioner. The TILR submitted the report. He was cross-examined by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed application for re-measurement. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Mr.Sonwane, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are anomalies in the measurement carried out by the TILR 2 W.P.No.6951/11 and the map which is submitted by the TILR is also erroneous. The TILR has committed many procedural illegalities while conducting the measurement. The learned counsel contends that there are inherent defects in the measurement. Even in cross-examination the TILR has admitted that the measurement was carried out without issuing notices to the adjacent land owners. The learned counsel further contends that the measurement carried out on the basis of the Consolidation record which is improper and not according to the factual situation and for all these purpose, remeasurement of the land is necessary. 4. The TILR was appointed to measure the land after the matter was remanded by the appellate Court. The plaintiff and the defendant had filed joint application for measurement by TILR. Pursuant thereto the Court has appointed the TILR to measure the land. The TILR measured the land and submitted his report and the map. The petitioner has taken objection to the same. Even the TILR is cross-examined by the petitioner. Whether the situation of the well has been properly given, whether the measurement has been carried out as per record. All these aspects is a matter of appreciation of evidence which the trial Court would be required to do at the time of final decision. The petitioner has cross-examined the TILR. The maps are on record. The Court will take into consideration the relevancy of those maps and credibility and 3 W.P.No.6951/11 authenticity of the evidence including that of TILR shall decide the matter. Remeasurement for the same purpose would not be necessary. Moreover, it is for the trial Court to consider about the validity of the measurement map and the report. If the trial Court comes to the conclusion about the validity of the measurement and its report then it can decide the said matter on its own merits. If the Court feels that measurement is necessary for elucidating the matter in dispute then it is the discretion of the Court to appoint the Court Commissioner for the purpose. 5. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.12.09.2011. asp/office/wp6951.11 4 W.P.No.6951/11