Allowed

Akhtar v. Sri Surjeet Singh Gandhi

Uttarakhand HC8 Dec 2021CLR/82/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the petition and set aside an order rejecting an application for appointing a Survey Commissioner. The Court quashed the lower court's refusal, held that a Survey Commission is necessary given the dispute over the land's location, and remanded the matter with directions to expedite the proceedings and obtain the report within 20 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.07.2018 set aside; trial court directed to appoint Survey Commissioner within 20 days and expedite suit hearing.

Akhtar Vs Sri Surjeet Singh Gandhi — Property and Title | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶3

08^TH DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

CIVIL REVISON NO.82 of 2018

¶5

Between:

¶6

Akhtar and Others. …Revisionists

¶7

and

¶8

Shri Surjeet Singh Gandhi. …Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Revisionists: Mr. Ramji Shrivastava.

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Vikas Bahuguan.

¶11

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶12

This civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 09.07.2018, passed by the learned II^nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No.363 of 2012, “Akhtar and Others vs. Surjeet Singh Gandhi”, whereby, the learned trial court has rejected the application of the revisionists for appointment of Survey Commissioner stating therein that the parties have to prove their pleadings with their own evidence and the court is not a means of collecting evidence for any party.

¶13

¶14

2 . Heard Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

3 . Perused and gone through the record.

¶16

4 . The revision is admitted.

¶17

5 . The revisionists are plaintiffs and the respondent is defendant. The said original suit has been filed for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondent filed his written statement. In the written statement, he also filed counter claim for perpetual injunction. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiffs have illegally included the land of the defendant in their land.

¶18

6 . The learned counsel for both the parties submitted that there is a dispute regarding situation/location of the land. The learned counsel for both the parties further submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically with regard to the location of the disputed land.

¶19

7 . The purpose of the Survey Commission is to identify the disputed land.

¶20

8 . In Shreepat vs. Rajendra Prasad and Others, 2000 (6) Supreme 389, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where dispute relating to identity of

¶21

¶22

land is involved, then, for resolution of dispute, Survey Commissioner’s report is necessary.

¶23

9 . Admittedly, there is dispute between the parties regarding the situation of the land, therefore, the learned trial court should have issued Survey Commission for fixing the location of the property-in-dispute.

¶24

10 . Therefore, the impugned order dated

¶25

09.07.2018 is set aside.

¶26

11 . The learned trial court is directed to pass a fresh order on the application of the revisionists/plaintiffs for appointment of Survey Commission in accordance with law. The original suit is pending since the year, 2012. Therefore, the learned trial court shall expedite the appointment of the Survey Commissioner and shall ensure that the report is obtained within 20 days. The learned trial court is further directed to expedite the hearing of the suit and adjudicate the suit without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶27

12 . This civil revision is allowed accordingly.

¶28

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶29

Dt: 08^th December, 2021 Neha

Akhtar v. Sri Surjeet Singh Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar v. Sri Surjeet Singh Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munish Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Uttarakand

Munish Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepa Joshi Vs Saurabh Joshi

Krishna Dev Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Om Prakash Vs C.B.I.

Ram Avtar Vs State of Uttarakhand