Jai Lal vs Rajesh and Others

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dt. 01.07.2008.

It appears that the trial Court with the consent of the parties directed the Gram Panchayat Makrodi to inspect the site and prepare the report and produce the same in the Court. The said report was submitted in the trial Court which is dt. 01.03.2008.

The petitioner objected to the said report upon which the trial Court observed that the petitioner''s contention that the report should have been prepared in the presence of both the parties cannot be accepted because the Court did not order that the site be inspected and report be prepared in the presence of the parties. The order on the face of it appears to be illegal and not sustainable as the opportunity has not been granted to both the parties to remain present at the time of inspection of the site by the Gram Panchayat and further the report has been taken on record despite the objection of the petitioner.

The site inspection report prepared by any person or body authorized by the Court is required to be prepared after inspecting the site in the presence of the parties so that there may not be error of fact.

In view of the above reason only, the writ petition is allowed and the order dt. 01.07.2008 is set aside. The site inspection report dt. 01.03.2008 is also set aside and it is ordered that the Gram Panchayat, Makrodi may now inspect the site in the presence of both the parties. The trial Court may fix the date for the presence of the parties and may issue Taharir to the Gram Panchayat with direction to inspect the site in the presence of both the parties and prepare the report and produce the same in the Court.