Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In view thereof, the Deputy Director of Land Records, Bagalkot District is directed to carry out a survey of Survey No.32/1 of Kulhalli village, Rabkavi-Banahatti taluk, fix the boundaries of the land purchased by the petitioner and the respondent, as also the boundaries of the lands purchased by other persons in the said survey number and furnish a report by 13.04.2022.

3. The Deputy Director of Land Records shall issue notice to all the land owners in Survey No.32 and carry out the same in the presence of the respective land owners. The DDLR to make it clear that, if anyone of them were to be absent on the said date, she/he would not be able to claim any benefit on the ground of being absent.

13. Pursuant to the order passed on 16.03.2022, the DDLR has submitted a report along with a sketch, which shows that, plaintiff is in possession of 8 acres 6 guntas of land and defendants are in possession of 6 acres 37 guntas of land, but the land of defendants exceeds beyond the Halla on the eastern side.

14. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court did not have the benefit of the sketch and the report of DDLR. Hence, based on the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds, the trail Court and the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that, prima facie the plaintiff had proved his case and passed the impugned orders in favor of the plaintiff.

- 11 -

15. The report of DDLR, prima facie proves the case of the defendants that, their lands extends beyond the Halla. However, they have not set up any counter claim and hence I.A. No.4 filed by them before the trial Court cannot be answered in their favor. If, the report of the DDLR is accepted I.A. Nos.1 to 3 filed by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected.

16. The plaintiff has filed his objections to the report of DDLR and contends that, the said report is erroneous and cannot be accepted. Whether, the said report is erroneous or not is a matter of trail and a decision can be arrived at only after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the DDLR, which can be done only in the trial Court.

17. At this juncture both the counsel for the plaintiff and defendants fairly submit that, the writ petition may be disposed off by confirming the order dated 20.12.2021 with a direction to the trial Court to give an opportunity to

- 12 -

both the parties to cross-examine the DDLR and thereafter pass suitable orders on I.A. Nos.1 to 3.

18. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court with a direction to the trial Court to afford an opportunity for both the plaintiff and the defendants to cross-examine the DDLR and thereafter take a decision on I.A. Nos.1, 4 and 5 and the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property concerned till such decision is taken. Hence, the following;