Arjundas vs Nagar Palika Nigam & Others

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class-I, Katni

in Civil Suit no.79-A/2007.

Petitioner's contention is that he has filed a title suit in respect of the land as mentioned in the plaint against the respondents including the Income Tax

Department. A written statement has been filed by the Income Tax Department before the trial Court and the Income Tax Department stated before

the trial Court that they have constructed a building only on the land which was acquired and handed over to the Income Tax Department. The trial

Court by the impugned order dated 18.9.2008 has appointed a Commission to inform the details of the land over which the building has been

constructed as well as certain other queries have been raised by the trial Court which are required to be answered by the Commission by submitting a

report. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as the suit in question is a title suit, the question of appointing the

Commission in the manner and method which has been adopted by the trial Court does not arise.

On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 stated before this Court that they have acquired the land in question and the same has

been given to the Income Tax Department and the income Tax Department has not encroached any land at any point of time and has constructed a

building over the land which has been handed over to them by the respondent no.1. He has also argued that the Court below has rightly appointed the

Commission.

In the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties is of the opinion that the learned trial Court by

way of a abandoned caution has rightly appointed the Commission vide the impugned order as the title suit can certainly be decided after obtaining the

report as desired by the trial Court especially in light of the fact that earlier demarcation report has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel

appearing for the Municipal Corporation before the trial Court.

Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter. However, the trial Court is directed to appoint a senior officer not below the rank of

S.D.O. as Commission and direct him to submit a report keeping in view earlier order dated 18.9.2008. It is needless to mention that the petitioner

(plaintiff no.1) as well as representatives of the respondents No.1 and 2 shall also be granted opportunity of hearing by the Commission while

demarcating and measuring the land in question. The exercise of appointing the Commission and directing the Commission to submit a report be

concluded within a period of 60 days from today.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 21.7.2014.

C.C. as per rules.