Allahabad High Court
Bansaraj And 4 Others vs Shiv Murti Singh And Another on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 52 of 2023
Petitioner :- Bansaraj And 4 Others
Respondent :- Shiv Murti Singh And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.
By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saidpur, Ghazipur, whereby, their objection to the Survey Commission Report has been turned down and Survey Commission Report has been approved for the purposes of same being taken on record. Petitioners are also aggrieved against the order passed on application seeking condonation of delay.
Having hard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the record, I find that in the Survey Commission Report measurement has been done from fixed point for the purposes of carrying out survey and preparation of plots qua the land in dispute. The objection that has been raised by the present petitioners to the Survey Commission is two fold: firstly, they were not present when the survey was being done, whereas, it has come to be stated by the Amin Commissioner that the Advocates were informed by him prior to conducting survey and parties were present. It is not disputed that the Advocate has not come forward to give statement that he was not present along with the party. A vague and bald allegation has come to be made that the petitioner was not present at the time of survey, therefore, this contention does not appeal to reason. Secondly it is argued that the measurement as conducted by the petitioner varied from the measurement for the Amin Commissioner report I find that the Court has found that the petitioner was not able to demonstrate as to how he had carried out the measurement. It is well laid principle for measurement in the Survey Manual that while survey has to be conducted of the spot measurement, it has to be done from a fixed point on the prescribed scale and Well has been prescribed as fixed point. From the Survey Commission Report that has been placed before the Court, I find that the Well of the village has been taken as fixed point and measurement has been carried out as per scale. Moreover, the Survey Commission Report itself is not an evidence. It is for the Court to believe or disbelieve at the time of final hearing and would test it in light of arguments of respective parties and other evidence on record.
It is in these circumstances, that the Survey Commission Report would be of some avail to the Court for the purposes of identification of suit land. Besides above, these are very intermediary stages of suit in which this Court would normally not interfere in exercise of its superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. I do not find any flaw in the judgment of trial court and hence I decline to interfere.
Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
IrfanUddin
