The High Court allowed a revision petition setting aside an order appointing a Local Commissioner without examining a prior report submitted by a different commissioner. The Court held the order was passed without application of mind, violating constitutional powers.
Set aside the impugned order and directed the Court to proceed in accordance with law.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 1829 of 2009
Date of decision : May 21, 2009
Rakesh Kumar and others
Petitioners
Versus
Bal Kishan
Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Anil Kheterpal, Advocate for the respondent
This revision petition is against the order dated 14.3.2003
passed by Civil Judge (SD) Jagadhri whereby the Court while discarding the report of Mohammad Ali Kanango appointed Halqua Kanugo as Local Commissioner.
It is surprising that in the instant case the Court vide order dated 2.5.2003 had appointed Mr. Virender Pal Singh, Advocate as Local Commissioner to demarcate the area and he submitted his report on 14.5.2003. However, the Court without calling for the objections or ignoring the aforesaid report dated 14.5.2003 proceeded to appoint another Local Commissioner i.e. Mohammad Ali Kanungo and thereafter Halqua Kanungo to visit the spot and demarcate the land in dispute in order to ascertain whether space was left by the defendant out of his own land while planting the trees. This procedure with regard to appointment of Local Commissioner without condemning the earlier report is unknown to law. The officer appears to have not examined the file and made no
2
C.R. No. 1829 of 2009
efforts to see that there is already a report of Local Commissioner, as such, while exercising powers under Section 227 of the Constitution of India and holding that impugned order appears to have been passed without application of mind, therefore, it has resulted into miscarriage of justice, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the Court to proceed in accordance with
law.
21.05.2009 reena
(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition is maintainable and if the lower court committed an error of law by appointing a Local Commissioner without examining an existing report on file.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Kumar and others
Bal Kishan
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
