1 WP No.4871/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4871 of 2010 Ramchandra Bhairu Chandane ... Petitioner versus Namdeo Shankar Kamble ... Respondent ... Mr.D.G.Ghode for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 30th July 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 29 July 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Shahuwadi rejecting the petitioner’s application for rejecting the report of the Court Commissioner and appointing TILR again as a Court Commissioner for measurement of the land. 2. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order for reasons more than one. The impugned order is interlocutory and calls for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. On the plaintiff’s application for appointment of a Government Officer as a Court Commissioner for measurement of the land, the Court appointed DILR as a Court Commissioner. The measurement was carried out by TILR as Officer sub­ordinate to DILR and the report was 2 WP No.4871/10 submitted. Thereafter, the present application has been made that since the DILR has not personally carried out the measurement, he be appointed afresh as Court Commissioner. DILR is the head of the Survey Department of the whole district. TILR is the head surveyor of each taluka in a district. As per the Government rules, DILR is an administrative Officer while TILR is a field Officer who is involved in actual carrying out of the work of the survey. Original measurement is to be carried out it is carried out by the TILR and not by DILR. The DILR holds appellate powers (as a nimtana) under the Revenue Rules and the Superintendent of Land Records hold further appellate powers (called as sir nimatana). Taking this into consideration, I see no error in the Court rejecting the application for appointment of DILR afresh to carry out fresh commission. In a suit for immovable property, plaintiff is required to give full description of the property including its boundaries (see order 7 Rule 3 of C.P.C) As such, petitioner was required to give full description of the property on which respondents are alleged to have committed encroachment. Apart from such description, petitioner was required to annexe a sketch/plan so as to identify the property and its length and breadth. In stead of performing his duty of getting the land measured through government office, (in law any person can get the land measured from a Government surveyor on payment of fees) he chose to adopt a short cut of filing a suit without first measuring a land annexing such a plan to the plaint and then applying for Court Commissioner. This was improper. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)