Dismissed

Dhodhai Das alias Dodhai Sah, v. Ramayan Sah

Patna HC28 Jun 2022C.Misc./69/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil miscellaneous application challenging the rejection of an objection to a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner's report. The petitioner argued the chaining method was unscientific compared to triangulation. The court found no infirmity in the lower court's finding that chaining was appropriate for the area.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous application was dismissed.

Dhodhai Das alias Dodhai Sah, Vs Ramayan Sah — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.69 of 2020

¶2

¶3

CIVIL REVISION No.157 of 2019

¶4

======================================================

¶5

Dhodhai Das alias Dodhai Sah, S/o Late Mansa Das, Resident of VillagePatpariya, P.O.- Rupdih, P.S.- Motihari Muffasil, District- East Champaran.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ramayan Sah, S/o Late Khedu Sah, Resident of Village-Patpariya, P.O.Rupdih, P.S.-Motihari Muffasil, District-East Champaran.

¶9

Mahendra Sah, S/o Late Khedu Sah, Resident of Village-Patpariya, P.O.Rupdih, P.S.-Motihari Muffasil, District-East Champaran.

¶10

Ravindra Das, S/o Dhodhai Das, Resident of Village-Patpariya, P.O.-Rupdih, P.S.-Motihari Muffasil, District-East Champaran.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar No.III For the Respondent/s : ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶14

4 28-06-2022 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III, learned counsel for

¶15

the petitioner.

¶16

By the impugned order dated 29.03.2019 passed in Title Suit No. 81 of 2010 the objection petition filed by the petitioner to the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner’s report has been rejected.

¶17

The petitioner is a defendant in the suit. The opposite party 2^nd set / respondents are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession after removing the structure built over the suit land by the defendant.

¶18

The plaintiffs filed an application for appointment of

¶19

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.69 of 2020(4) dt.28-06-2022 2/3

¶20

Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner for the measurement of suit land and for furnishing a report showing what area of plaintiffs has been encroached by the defendant.

¶21

The defendant-petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid application dated 10.02.2011 in which it it was suggested that since the application of plaintiffs is vague hence the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner be directed to furnish report after measurement of suit plot nos. 116 , 117, 574 and 576 and ascertain whether or not the defendants have amalgamated the Southern ridge of the suit land. The court below allowed the application of the plaintiffs and suggestions given by the petitioner- defendant vide order dated 23.03.2011. An objection to the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner’s report was submitted by the petitioner contending that report submitted by the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner is not scientific.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the method of measurement applied by the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner is not scientific and instead of triangulation method he has measured the suit land by chaining method. He further submits that area is populated therefore triangulation method ought to have been applied by Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner for measurement.

¶23

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.69 of 2020(4) dt.28-06-2022 3/3

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order it appears that the objection petition filed by the petitioner has properly been considered by court below and it has come to the conclusion that triangulation method is not a suitable form of surveying in the present case and chaining method is appropriate method for the area in question. Accordingly the objection petition filed by the defendant -petitioner has been rejected. I find no infirmity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned court below. As such, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.

¶25

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶26

praful/-

¶27

Dhodhai Das alias Dodhai Sah, v. Ramayan Sah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhodhai Das alias Dodhai Sah, v. Ramayan Sah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Rai @ Ranjit Kumar, Vs Nand Kishore Prasad

Rahul Kumar Singh, Vs Surendra Prasad Singh

Mithilesh Kumar Vs The Bihar State Election Commission

Nimisha Gupta, Vs Rajesh Kumar

Jalo Kumar Vs Priti Kumari

Alok Ranjan Sahay alias Bittu Vs Rachna Priya