7;STt SS^ VW ^p^- o' 1 'ysr "4i<4ici<i, ®in1'M<i<o,f^siiyy ^^^...^y^o,.^^.H.......^ ^Q^- ?( PETiTIONERS: (PIaintiffs) 1. 2. -V fersus- RESPONDENTS: (Defendants) 2 iitior Slnale Bench: Hon'b Shri SanjayK. Agrawai, cd^ Shri Shreekumar Agrawa! atefor respondents No.1 a| Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel U <*il^[d<il-f lWI?ff'? ftft <F>1^]< ^affiraa^r Onkar'Prasad. S/o Shri Vishnu Prasad Mishra, aged about 46 years, Govt. Empioyee Nirmala Devi, W/o Onkar Prasad Mishra, aged 43 years, Both Resident of Viliage Kukurda, Tah. Mungeii, presently at Lormi, Tah. Lormi, Dist. Bitaspur, Chhattisaarh iju Devi, W/o Sitaram Jajodiya, aged about 36 yeare, Prabha Devi, W/o Prem Shanker Jajodiya, aged 38 years. • ioth Resident of Khaparganj, Biiaspur, Tah. S Dist. Bilaspur, Chhatttsgarh State of Chhattisgarh, Through Coilector, Bilaspur, Chl- :6/227 ofthe Constitution of india) , d. inset for the petitioners. Sr. Advocate with Shri Anand <d2.. \ wyer for the State/respondent .No .;,' ^KiSB±t«.-ii"«-'^M -<aiit^^ima^.i,»i<i;B.ii8ii^Eaiti«^^ V ..-^\. ^il :S» H y s '^p1*' /^ ;—78 75[ '*ii't|i<n'4, anl'M'is, f°>i<ni'My,< sn^i 'q^qr (ipt;pi^q) w W sntiiaRisff sww^ ^tfr .sp mis wnt petrt'on is asrq December, 1998 passed in Civi Judge, Class-1, Bilaspur whereb\(j by the Commissioner appointed been rejected. The petitloners against the above order. !n the ^ suit No.26-A/93 were stayed vid^ hoy.'ever, revision was dismlssed | recourse to other legai remedies Since there was dispute v< iand between the parties, the tri^ as Commisstoner for loca! invest PC (Annexure-P/3) and direct The grievance of the pet| appointed as Commissioner for l^ investigation and Revenue !nspe( (Annexure-P/5) to the Tehsildar.. the said report cn t'ne ground th^! the appointed Commlssloner aft^ and the report was submltted' Inspector. !nvestigation for demaiji +i<<f<-i<il-< w^f •? fe'st <Rii+si< ^affinsn^r ,th lcted asalnsi the order datsd 10" Sujt N0.26-A/93 by iearned.4th Civil objection against the report submitted Inder Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC has eariier fsied Cjvi! Revision No.24/99 iaid Civit Revision, proceedings in Civil orderdated 11-1-99 (Annexure-P/10), on 30'" June, 2005 with libsrty to have ind accordingly, the instant pet'tion has pect to identity of the disputed appointed Tehsildar, Bilaspur under Order 26 Rule 9-of the Coliector to ss Itioners is that though TehsiSdar was ^ca! investlgation, he did not make any ;tor submitted his report dsted 13-5-98 'he pet'tioners raised objection against the report has not been submttted by r himse!f conducting toca! investigatiOR 3y unauthorized person l.e, Revenue ;ation was done behind the back ofthe "S^ '^l<iM<i, 9V\WW, ^WWy. s^n %i K;ii* ffqT3)1^TW>tiW \--1 1) K<Si< s wimwi 'wraf 'if 'fs'et <F>I+;;I< ^affiriTsn^r petitioners wlthout any notice to were raised in the objecttons, fixing any permanent mark. rejected the objection with an obi was appointed as Commissi' demarcation and Tehsjidar gq triai Court, by the impugned order, ^ervation that though Tehsildar, Bilaspur fener and was directed to conduct jt the demarcation executed through revenue inspecfor and theresfter which is in accordance with law. Learned counse! for Commissioner's report is a val Commissioner after such loca! to the Court and evidence takenl the same rorm oart of the record the permfssion of the Court ma; in open Court with respect to thq On the other hand, Shrj counsel contended that the re1 far as other objection that dem petitioners behind their back the petitioners. Several other grounds uch as demareation was done without report has been sybmitfed in the Court, (he petitioners submitted that ttae ?ie piece of evidence. The appointed |spection is required to retum the report; |by him is to be evidence in the suit and and any of the parties to the suit with examine the Commissioner personaHy [report submitted by him. Shrsekumar Agrawal, iearned senior ^enue inspector is equatly emppwered pisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for under Section 129.0f.the Chh; demarcation of the tand, the revenue inspector cannot was not appointed as Commisstoner by the concerned C'vii Court. So i, the demarcation report submitted by' rejected soiely on the ground that he reation was done without notice to the tnal ~^ Lf'^ 'S^ •<<i<<id'4, yti1y'i|<o, (qniyy 3<^!qn- ??SiT 3'i^T S^iN' /< iiiiKi'fli i-iiwif '9 <^S <Fii*^i< ^sfRpTan^i dlrected to decide the above ob basis of report submitted by the have heard learned couns Tehsildar was appointed e hy iearned triat Court. The ord' was fon^rded to the Collector, For Loca! Investigation Rules, however, the revenue inspector] submitted his report to the Tehsii the Court. Order 26 Rule 10 (2) pro| ev'dence in suit ,and examinatiol reproduced as isnder:- The by him (but not the^ shall be evidence In the si record; but the Court or,| Court, any of the parties Commissioner personally the matters referred to himl as to his report, or as to m.ade the investigation." lection of the petitioners afresh on the qommissioner before it. iel for the parties. js Commissioner for local investiflation jr of appointment of the Commissioner |as per the Chhattisgarh Commissions 1962 (for short 'the Rules, 1962'); [has conducted local jnvestigation and ijjar and the same has also been fited in j/ides for report and depositions to be of Commissioner in person, which is Inissioner and the evidence wifhout pit and shait form part of the with the permission of the ^o the suit may examine the |i open Court touch.ing any of ormentioned |n hisreport, or the manner in which he has %.K^; XI-HG—78 t^i Wl ail^l ^ 'TSET •^WM<i, ®tll-H'16,fs|CII<iy SII^TTR^'C WIW « -^. Part-1! or'the Ruies, 1962, by provjso to Ruie.9 Order 26 o1 Procedure, 1908, deals with rev be Issued. Rule 4 & 5 of the abo "4. A commission issued through the whom he is subord endorse the comm! named to make the if the CoIIector i; [framed In -exercise of powers conferred the First Scheduie to the Code of Civli '^nue bfflcer to whom commission may ^e ruies reads thus:- <3 a Revenue Ofricer sha'l be Collector of the district, to Inate and the Colfector shali tsion to the Revenue Officer lecessary loca! investigation. Offlcer cannot, witl interest, be ca!Ied| investlgation, he sh^ effect on the commil whs'ch issued it: andl as conclusiveiy dst| the Revenue Ofl avai!ab!e." 'n the instant. case, sir|i Tehsiidar has not conducted inspectorhas submitted demar sDPointed Commissioner i.e. «hi^Id(i)-iiwRff •? re%t •({W^R w sfRpT-sn^r of opinion that the Revenue due regard to Government upon to make such local I! endorse his opinion to that ;sion and return it to the court his opinion shat! be accepted 'rmining that the servfees of cer in question ara not rdat se the appointed-Commissioner,'i:e. local investigation and the Pevenye tion report after local investigation, the 'ehsildar cannot be summoned as: a XI-HG—78 35R?I^I ^iqi an^I%t!W yan/e -F K^ ^ 'S^ •<<i<iiw4, atily'ie, fsxni-M^i STI^I •q^?7 (-aclf^^:?) ?^HW :Hft? 3'^?; witness at the instances of th( Order 26 Rule 10 (2) ofthe CPC| and Rule 4 & 5 ofthe above R| Revenue Ofricer, who was app( joca! investlgation, the proper apprise the same to the Coilecto| his opinion in accordance with R| could not entrust local investigs due permlsslon from the Court. Apart from the above obj considered other objections rajs< the Commissioner, which is evi( petition.ers (Annexure-P/6) and tt For the aforesald reasonsl Annexure-P/8 's set aside. Tlt objection of the petition°rs a$ iight of observations made by opportunlty of hearina to the par|i respective parties as provided under !n view of clear and speeific provisions iles, if there was any difficulty with the jinted as Commlssioner for carrying out jourse for such Revenue Officer was to t', who coutd return the commission with lule 5 ofthe Rules, 1962. The Tehsildar ttion to the Revenue Inspector without <!M'Ll(f1^il T?F^ff ^f 1:S^ iP^I^R: ^3ifgq3:n^I dent ^ction, iearned trial Court has a'so not (d by the petitioners against the report of from the objection submitted by the |e impugned order of Annexure-P/8. the petition is allowed and the orderof |e trial Court is directed to decide fhe |st the report of the Commissioner in the this Cou~t in th's order after affording. |ies, in accordance with law. ^--- c>dj'.rt^a a-M^ ^^ reO^T