Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The plaintiff initiated final decree proceedings, seeking direction to the Tahsildar to divide and demarcate the properties fallen to the shares of the parties and put them in possession. The final decree Court in FDP No.19/2015 appointed the Tahsildar as Court Commissioner to effect partition in terms of the preliminary decree. The ADLR, Ankola submitted the report, respondent No.2/appellant herein filed objection to the Commissioner's report stating that the survey conducted was not in his NC: 2024:KHC-D:16148 presence and the watap-takta was prepared in the absence of respondent No.2, further only dry lands were allotted to respondent No.1. The report of the Commissioner was submitted on 10.07.2020, the final decree Court on going through the watap-takta and the Commissioner's report submitted by the ADLR, accepted and held that respondent No.2/appellant herein had failed to establish that irrigated land has been allotted to the petitioner/plaintiff and dry land has been allotted to the respondents, by the final order directed the final decree to be drawn on the basis of the Commissioner's report. Appellant herein filed appeal, the grievance of the appellant before the First Appellate Court was that the Taluka Surveyor cannot be appointed to carry out the Commission Work under Section 54 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") and as per Section 54 CPC, it has to be done by a revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar. The First Appellate court while re- appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence affirmed the final decree passed. Aggrieved, respondent No.2 is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16148

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court appointed the Tahsildar as a Court Commissioner and in turn the Tahsildar has sent the papers to the ADLR, which is impermissible as per Section 54 CPC and accepting the report of the Commissioner filed by the ADLR, is not in accordance with Section 54 CPC. In support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sanga Reddy Vs. Smt. Basamma and Others1(Sanga Reddy).

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing respondents drawing the attention of this Court to the provision of Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 submits (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for short) that the ADLR holds the rank equivalent to that of the Tahsildar, the trial Court in light of Section 54 CPC has secured the report of Revenue Officer (ADLR), who is not below the rank of the Tahsildar.

7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. ILR 2004 KAR 3664 NC: 2024:KHC-D:16148

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 NC: 2024:KHC-D:16148 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 of the same and equivalent rank thus the report submitted by the ADLR , which is accepted by the trial Court cannot be said contrary to the Section 54 CPC. The decision placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Sanga Reddy stated supra, is distinguishable as in the said facts the partition was ordered through Court commissioner. In the instant case, the trial Court has felt it necessary to secure the report of a Revenue Officer and appointed the Tahsildar as a Court Commissioner, and the ADLR who submitted the report is not below the rank of Tahsildar and hence under these circumstance this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the trial Court is in terms of Section 54 CPC and there is no error or illegality committed by the Courts below warranting any interferences by this Court and this Court pass the following: