1 wp 7907.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7907 OF 2011 Hamid Mehmood Pathan .. Petitioner Versus Halim Ahmed Mohammed Kurban L.R.'s Matin Begun Halim Ahmed and others .. Respondents Shri M. B. Kolpe, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondents/original plaintiffs filed a suit for possession on the avernments that the defendant has encroached upon their land. The respondents filed an application for appointment of T. I. L. R. as Court Commissioner. The same is allowed. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Kolpe, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court Commissioner is appointed only to verify the possession and for said purpose no Court Commissioner can be appointed. It is not disputed that the petitioner is in possession 2 wp 7907.11 of the property. Even the map is annexed, as such there is no need to again appoint the T. I. L. R. as a Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect the evidence. 3. The suit is filed by the respondents for possession on the ground that the defendants have encroached over the part of their property. The encroachment can effectively be proved with the assistance of the report from the T. I. L. R, if the Court finds the report of the T. I. L. R. to be trustworthy and reliable. Even the Apex Court in a case of Hariyana Wakf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 671 has held that in cases where there is dispute regarding encroachment/identification of the property, then the T. I. L. R. can be appointed as a Court Commissioner. Moreover, the same would assist the Court in effective adjudication of the dispute. 4. In the light of the above no error is committed by the Court while passing the impugned order. The writ petition as such is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11