Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13006-DB HC-KAR submitted his report."

11) The advocate for the petitioners has submitted that he has no objections to the Court commissioner's report.

12) The advocate for the respondents filed objections contending that this Court appointed the Tahasildar as commissioner, but the ADLR has executed the commission work, hence, same is not acceptable one. There is no dispute that the ADLR is attached to Tahasildar Office, Dharwad. He executed the commission work as per order of this Court. As per section 54 of CPC it is necessary for the Court to appoint a revenue officer not below the rank of Tahasildar to effect the partition. Thus, this Court appointed the Tahasildar, Dharwad as Court commissioner. The Tahasildar, Dharwad took the assistance of ADLR and executed the commission work and submitted the report. Practically it is not possible to Tahasildar in every case to execute commission work personally. Hence, he can take the help of technical staff i.e., surveyor. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no any illegality in that process. Moreover, the objection of the respondents is only technical one. Hence, that holds no water.

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13006-DB HC-KAR hardship or loss to any of the parties warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal.

17. The appellants had contended that despite the Trial Court appointing the Tahasildar as a Court Commissioner, it was the ADLR who had conducted the local inspection and who had conducted the survey and submitted his report which is impermissible in law and the same deserves to be set aside. In this context, it is pertinent to note that both the Tahasildar and the ADLR occupy the same rank/status in hierarchy. Under identical circumstances in the case of Sri. Ganesh Vishnu Hegde Vs. Bhavani Dattatreya Hegde and another [RSA No.101274/2022, disposed of on 05.11.2024], a learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that merely because ADLR conducted the survey instead of the Tahasildar, the said circumstance would not be a basis to interfere with the report and sketch of the Court Commissioner or the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court accepting the same. In Ganesh Vishnu Hegde's case (supra), this Court held as under:

10. Section 54 CPC envisages that primary duty is of the Court to partition the estate and cause separation of share, and if necessary, the Court can appoint a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar as a Commissioner and seek report. In the instant case, the trial Court / FDP Court appointed the Tahsildar as Court Commissioner to effect partition in terms of the preliminary decree. The Tahsildar delegated the power to survey the suit property and submit his report, the commission work was carried out by the ADLR, the Tahsildar who is the head of revenue taluk has obtained the assistance of the surveyor (ADLR) and as per Sections 11, 12 and 18 of the Act, the ADLR and the Tahsildar are

- 24 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13006-DB HC-KAR consequently, the said contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in i) Combe v. Combe4, and ii) Shamanna Setty Vs. B.L.Channegowda5 and iii) Somaraddi and others Vs. Smt. Tayavva (since deceased by L.Rs)6 in order to contend that so long as the Trial Court had appointed the Tahasildar as Court Commissioner, it was impermissible for the ADLR to have conducted the survey and submit a report which could not have been accepted by the Trial Court. In our considered opinion, as stated supra, apart from the fact that the said contention has been negatived by the Trial Court, so long as the ADLR, who is equivalent to the rank of the Tahasildar as held by this Court in Ganesh Vishnu Hegde's case (supra), it cannot be said that there is any demonstrable prejudice, loss, injury or hardship caused to the appellant in the ADLR, who is equivalent in rank to the Tahasildar, conducting the commission work and submitting his report which was accepted by the Trial Court. In (1951) 2 KB 215 (CA) (2007)5 Kant LJ 494 RSA No.100328/2015, disposed off on 05.06.2015