AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kovid Bhatt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lok Pal Singh, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
The petitioner is the plaintiff and has filed a suit against the opposite parties praying that they may be restrained from interfering in the possession of the land which the plaintiff had purchased by means of a sale deed on 17th February, 1982. According to the plaintiffs, the land, in question, was part of plot No. 69 which they had purchased. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the disputed area was part of plot No. 70. Based on this dispute, the plaintiffs moved an application u/s 41 of the Land Revenue Act for the demarcation of the property. It is alleged that the Assistant Collector passed an order and demarcated the property which order has been brought on the record of the trial court. It transpires that the defendant filed an appeal which was allowed and, thereafter, the plaintiffs had moved the matter before the Board of Revenue where the matter is pending consideration.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the petitioners moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. before the trial court for an appointment of a Survey Commissioner. This application was rejected by the trial court, against which a revision was filed which was also dismissed. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, has filed the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my view the impugned orders do not require any interference from the writ court in view of the fact that the survey of the land has already been demarcated by a competent authority u/s 41 of the Land Revenue Act which matter is pending finalisation before the Board of Revenue. The trial court was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. for survey of the same area which has already been done by the revenue authority.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed.