1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8226 OF 2009 1 Kachrusing s/o Gulabsingh Thakur, age: 57 years, Occ: Labour; 2 Ibrahim s/o Hazarat Tamboli, age: 56 years, Occ: Labour; 3 Padmakar s/o Keshavrao Potdar, age: 55 years, Occ: Labour; 4 Isak s/o Ismail Pathan, age: 42 years, Occ: Labour; 5 Shivdas s/o Sadashiv Kejkar, age: 52 years, Occ: Labour; All Residents of Village Bori, Tq. And District Latur. Petitioners Versus 1 Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Office, Bori, Village Bori, Tq. & Dist.Latur. 2 Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Office, Bori, Village Bori, Tq. & Dist.Latur. 3 Block Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Office, Bori, Village Bori, Tq. & Dist. Latur. Respondents Mr.R.P.Adgaonkar, advocate for petitioners. 2 CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 22nd March, 2010. P.C.: 1 An application tendered by original defendants – Respondents herein requesting the Court to appoint T.I.L.R. as Commissioner for conducting measurement of disputed property came to be allowed by the trial Court and said interlocutory order passed by trial Court is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 Original plaintiffs – petitioners herein claim that Village Panchayat is causing obstruction to the peaceful possession of petitioners – original plaintiffs and as such claim decree of perpetual injunction against Respondents – defendants. 3 It is the contention of Respondents – original defendants that plaintiffs, who are allottees of Government land, have committed encroachment over the property belonging to village panchayat. 4 After considering rival contentions, trial Court has framed issues and it is stated that plaintiffs have started leading their evidence. At the stage of recording evidence of plaintiffs, an application came to be presented by defendants seeking appointment of Commissioner for measuring suit property. In order to ascertain the extent of encroachment as well as, whether plaintiffs are occupying the property allotted to them and in order to secure measurement as well as map of property, the trial Court has directed appointment of Commissioner i.e. T.I.L.R. to measure the property, prepare a map and submit report to the trial Court. 3 5 On presentation of map and report, it would be open for the plaintiffs to raise appropriate objection to the measurement as well as report of the Commissioner. It would also be open for the parties to examine concerned Commissioner, if found necessary. It is contended that this is an attempt on the part of defendants to secure assistance of the Court to collect evidence. However, considering nature of dispute arising before the Court, it cannot be inferred that appointment of Commissioner merely, would be for collecting evidence on behalf of defendants. The trial Court has exercised discretion in favour of defendants and discretion exercised by the trial Court is based on the reasons recorded in the order, which, I find to be proper and convincing. In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. 6 Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp822609