This High Court heard a writ petition challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner for land re-measurement. The matter was heard by a single Judge and disposed of without a written judgment or detailed order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
12 WRIT PETITION NO.12489 OF 2022
BHAUSAHEB KARBHARI SATALE DIED
THROUGH LRS KIRTIKUMARBHAUSAHEB SATALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
ANKUSH SANTRAM MHETRE AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Vivek V. Tarde
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 12-12-2022
PER COURT :
. By way of the present petition, petitioners have
challenged the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge
Junior Division, Karjat below Exh.108 in Regular Civil Suit No.132 of
2015 rejecting plaintiffs’ / petitioners’ application for appointment of
Court Commissioner for measurement of land and to show actual
encroachment. On an earlier occasion, the application for
appointment of Court Commissioner was allowed by order dated
11.12.2018 and the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Karjat was
directed to measure the suit property bearing Survey No.217/A1.
Accordingly land has been measured by Taluka Inspector of Land
Records, Karjat and petitioners are found to be in possession of lesser
area than the one reflected in the revenue records. Therefore,
petitioners have filed another application for appointment of Court
2
Commissioner for re-measurement of the land. The trial Court has
recorded a finding that in the measurement record of Gat No.217 the
exact area of the land has not been specified. Therefore the Taluka
Inspector of Land Records will not be in a position to find out the
exact area of encroachment, if any. The trial Court has therefore held
that no practical purpose would be served in remeasuring the land.
On that count the application has been rejected.
2.The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the area
of the land can be ascertained from the measurement records. If that
is the case, petitioners are at liberty to produce necessary
measurement map. However for that purpose, reappointment of
Court Commissioner is not at all warranted. The petition is devoid of
merits and the same is dismissed without any orders as to costs.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. )
GGP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a petition challenging the rejection of an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner for re-measuring land.
Whether the facts complained of require the intervention of this Court in the form of a writ petition.
BHAUSAHEB KARBHARI SATALE DIED THROUGH LRS KIRTIKUMARBHAUSAHEB SATALE AND OTHERS
ANKUSH SANTRAM MHETRE AND OTHERS
SANDEEP V. MARNE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court