NAGOUDA BABURAO PATIL vs NAGOUDA BABURAO PATIL

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI


WRIT PETITION NO.107387 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. NAGOUDA BABURAO PATIL
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTURE,
R/O. NAGNUR, TALUK: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

2. BHIMANAGOUDA BABURAO PATIL
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAGNUR, TALUK: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.








…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SANTOSH B.MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:




SMT. SHOBHATAI @ SHWETA
W/O. SADANAND PATIL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/AGRICUTURE,
R/O. NAGANUR K.S., TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001,
NOW RESIDING AT SUTAKUD,
TALUK: KAGAL, DIST: KOLHAPUR,
STATE: MAHARASHTRA.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.M.TONNE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2024
PASSED IN F.D.P.NO.06/2024, BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE HUKKERI, ITENARY COURT SANKESHWAR PASSED ON IA NO.
1 VIDE ANNEXURE C; AND ETC.



Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.11.04
11:35:14 +0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

ORAL ORDER


The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners
challenging the order dated 24.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.I filed
under Order XX Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the Code of
1
Civil Procedure, 1908 , in FDP No.6/2024 by the Court of Senior
2
Civil Judge, Hukkeri, Itinerary Court at Sankeshwar , whereby
the FDP Court allowed the application and appointed the Taluka
Surveyor attached to the office of the Tahsildar/ADLR Hukkeri
as Court Commissioner to divide the suit ‘A’ schedule landed
properties and prepare the watap taktha, and appointed an
advocate as Court Commissioner to effect the division of the
suit ‘B’ schedule house properties and open spaces.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the
respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and separate
possession in O.S. No.101/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil

1

Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’
2
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘FDP Court’

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


3 rd
Judge, Hukkeri , seeking a 1/3 share in the suit schedule ‘A’
and ‘B’ properties. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1
and 2 appeared through their counsel, and defendant No.2 filed
a written statement denying the plaint averments. Defendant
No.2 contended before the Trial Court that the plaintiff had
relinquished her rights over the suit properties after receiving
₹4,00,000/- and four tolas of gold from each of the defendants
in the presence of elders.

3. Upon adjudication of the matter, the Trial Court
rd
decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff a 1/3 share in the suit
schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. Aggrieved by the said judgment
and decree, defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are the petitioners
herein, preferred RFA No.100303/2024 before this Court,
whereby this Court disposed the appeal.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff initiated FDP No.6/2024
under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC, seeking the appointment of
a Court Commissioner for the demarcation and division of the
suit properties. The defendants filed objections to the said
application, contending that the same was not maintainable in

3

Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


law. Upon hearing both parties, the FDP Court allowed the
application and appointed a Court Commissioner by order dated
24.10.2024.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have
preferred the present writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
I.A.No.I was filed under Order XX Rule 18 read with Section
151 of the CPC, seeking the appointment of the Assistant
Director of Land Records (ADLR), Hukkeri, as Court
Commissioner for effecting the division of the suit schedule
properties, and the appointment of an advocate as Court
Commissioner for effecting the partition and division of the suit
house and other properties. The learned counsel contends that
the FDP Court erred in appointing the Taluka Surveyor as Court
Commissioner for the purpose of demarcating the landed
properties, as the Taluka Surveyor is subordinate in rank to the
Tahsildar. Hence, prays to allow the petition by rejecting the
order passed by the FDP Court.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024



7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
relies upon the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in RFA No.100259/2019 and the judgment rendered
by a Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.100070/2024 in
support of the impugned order. Hence, prays for dismissal of
the order.

8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties,
the following point arises for consideration is:
“Whether the appointment of Taluka
Surveyor as Court Commissioner for
demarcating the agricultural lands is contrary
to amendment of Section 54 of the CPC?”

9. I have given anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and
have carefully perused the material placed on record, including

the impugned order.

10. Section 54 of CPC reads as follows:
“ 54. Partition of estate or separation of
share.— Where the decree is for the partition of an
undivided estate assessed to the payment of
revenue to the Government, or for the separate

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


possession of a share of such an estate the
partition of the estate or the separation of the
share shall be made by the Collector or any
gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by
him in this behalf, in accordance with the law for
the time being in force relating to the partition, or
the separate possession of shares, of such estates.”


11. A Division Bench judgment of this Court, in the case
of Malagouda S/o Shankreppa Mugali (since deceased)
by his LRs and Smt. Shantawwa W/o Shivangouda Patil
4
(since deceased) by her LRs , has held as follows:
“9. We also deem it fit to cull out paragraph No.13
of the Judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate bench of
this Court in the case of Shri Kallappa Balappa
Deshnur and Others vs. Shattu Yallappa Deshnur
and Others in RSA No.100104/2015(FDP)
clubbed with Civil Revision Petition
No.100009/2016 as under:
“13. Option is given to the Court either to
call a report from the Revenue Officer, not
below the rank of Tahsildar or such other
person as the Court may appoint as
Commissioner to effect execution of decree
for partition or separation of share. The
choice/option is left to the discretion of the
Court to choose the modes or options
provided for appointment of a Commissioner.
Absolutely there is no bar for the Court to
appoint an advocate as a Commissioner
under Section 54 of CPC. ‘Such other person’
in the legal sense includes an advocate also.
Merely the person appointed by the Court is
an advocate by profession cannot disentitle
him to be qualified as a Court Commissioner
under Section 54 of CPC, as long as there is

4
RFA No.100070/2024 decided on 16.04.2025

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


no express exclusion carved out by the
legislature under Section 54 of CPC. Hence,
the argument advanced at the hands of the
learned counsel for the appellants is wholly
misconceived and the same deserves to be
negated.”

10. The issue concerning the authority of the Final
Decree Proceedings (FDP) Court to appoint a Court
Commissioner below the rank of Tahsildar for the
purpose of effecting partition of agricultural land has
already been conclusively addressed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court. As rightly submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiffs, this
question is no longer res integra. This Court, in two
earlier reported judgments, has undertaken a detailed
interpretation of the expression “such other person”
occurring in Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, as
amended by the State of Karnataka. The consistent
judicial view has been that the said phrase is to be
construed with broad amplitude. It is settled that the
FDP Court is vested with discretion to appoint either a
Tahsildar or any other competent person as a
Commissioner to effect the division of property. The
intention behind such an enabling provision is to
ensure flexibility in the implementation of preliminary
decrees in partition suits, especially when practical
exigencies arise.
11. This Court is also cognizant of the practical
challenges often encountered in partition proceedings.
Though the FDP Court may appoint a Tahsildar as a
Commissioner to examine and report on the feasibility
of partitioning agricultural lands, in practice,
Tahsildars have been known to sub-delegate their
responsibilities by getting feasibility reports prepared
by subordinate revenue officials. In such instances,
this Court has found such sub-delegation to be
impermissible and has accordingly set aside the
feasibility reports and remitted the matters for
reconsideration under Section 54 of the CPC.
However, the facts in the present case are
distinguishable. Here, the FDP Court has not merely
endorsed a report prepared by a subordinate. Rather,
it has consciously and judicially exercised the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


discretion conferred upon it under the Karnataka
State Amendment to Section 54 of the CPC, which
explicitly allows the Court to choose between
appointing a Tahsildar or "such other person" to
undertake the task of partition. While the first option
authorizes the appointment of a revenue officer not
below the rank of Tahsildar, the second option
enables the Court to appoint any other suitable
person, irrespective of rank, provided the appointee is
competent to discharge the duties of survey and
reporting. This legislative flexibility is rooted in the
recognition that Tahsildars may not always be readily
available, and the unavailability of suitable officers
should not cause inordinate delay in the finalization of
partition proceedings. Therefore, in the present case,
the appointment of a Taluka Surveyor,a technically
qualified official under the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964 must be seen as a legitimate and
competent exercise of judicial discretion.
12. The contention advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the phrase “such other
person” must necessarily exclude revenue officials
and that, if a revenue officer is to be appointed, he
must be of the rank of Tahsildar or above, initially
appears attractive but does not withstand deeper
scrutiny. The argument attempts to impose an
artificial limitation upon the discretion afforded by the
Karnataka amendment to Section 54. The phrase
“such other person” is broad and inclusive by design,
and the statute does not expressly exclude revenue
officials from being appointed under this second limb
of discretion. Rather, it contemplates the appointment
of any individual, whether from the revenue
department or otherwise who is sufficiently qualified
to conduct a land survey and furnish a feasibility
report.
13. Statutory Framework and Relevance of "Such
Other Person". Under the unamended Section 54 of
the CPC, the role of partitioning agricultural land is
reserved for the Collector or an appointed Revenue
Officer, as per the general central enactment.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


However, the Karnataka Amendment replaces this
with a more specific and nuanced provision.
14. The first part of the Karnataka amendment
mandates that a Tahasildar shall be appointed to
carry out the division of agricultural lands. This
reflects the legislative preference for a revenue officer
not below the rank of Tahasildar, ensuring technical
competence and administrative authority in managing
agricultural land records and boundaries.
15. The second part of the amendment, however,
the phrase “such other person”, thereby expanding
the Court’s discretion. This provision allows the Court,
under suitable circumstances, to appoint someone
other than a Tahasildar, provided that such a person
is otherwise competent and qualified to conduct a
survey and submit a Feasibility Report. This other
person may or may not be a revenue officer, but must
possess the requisite technical knowledge and ability
to fulfil the task effectively.
16. The legislative intent behind including the
option “such other person” is grounded in practical
exigencies and the need for expeditious resolution of
partition suits. It is a known fact that Tahasildars,
being busy revenue officers, are often overburdened
with multiple statutory responsibilities. Their
unavailability or delay in submitting Feasibility
Reports has led to prolonged delays in final decree
proceedings in partition suits.
17. The insertion of the phrase “such other person”
is intended to avoid bottlenecks in the judicial
process. If the Court were confined solely to the
appointment of Tahasildars, many suits would remain
pending indefinitely, defeating the purpose of a
preliminary decree. By allowing the Court to appoint
any “other person” who is qualified (e.g., a Taluka
Surveyor, private licensed surveyor, or court
commissioner with technical expertise), the
amendment ensures that the partition process is
technically sound and legally valid, even if undertaken
by someone outside the formal revenue hierarchy.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


Although discretion is granted, it is not unregulated.
The decision to appoint such other person is subject
to judicial scrutiny, and the Court must be satisfied
that the appointed individual is competent and the
procedure adopted ensures fairness, transparency,
and equity among co-sharers.
18. The apparent contradiction between the two
limbs of the amendment that is, requiring a Tahasildar
on one hand and allowing "such other person" on the
other must be harmoniously construed. The first part
lays down the preferred route, while the second part
creates an enabling provision for exceptions based on
practical needs.
19. In sum, the use of the phrase “such other
person” in the Karnataka amendment to Section 54
CPC is not merely permissive but instrumental in
empowering the Court to effectively adjudicate and
implement partition decrees. It provides a balanced
mechanism: ensuring that while the competence of
Tahasildars is recognized, the realities of court
practice and administrative limitations at Moffusil level
are also accounted for by granting the Court
pragmatic flexibility.
20. Therefore, the contention that the appointment
of a Taluka Surveyor violates the mandatory
requirement that the appointee must not be below the
rank of Tahsildar is misconceived. The statutory
scheme provides two distinct alternatives: one
involving a Tahsildar and another involving “any such
other person.” The Taluka Surveyor, being an officer
trained and empowered to conduct land surveys
under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, falls squarely
within the scope of the second category.
21. In the present case, the suit was instituted in
the year 2005, and significant time has elapsed.
Indeed, this Court has, in numerous instances,
intervened where final decrees have been based on
flawed feasibility reports prepared through
unauthorized sub-delegation by Tahsildars. However,
in the present case, the appointment of a Taluka

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


Surveyor was not the result of such improper
delegation, but a direct exercise of judicial discretion
by the FDP Court. The Taluka Surveyor, being
technically qualified and statutorily recognized as a
competent authority under the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, was appropriately entrusted with the
preparation of the feasibility report.
22. It is also significant to note that the appellant
did not file any objections to the feasibility report
submitted by the Taluka Surveyor. Having failed to
object at the appropriate stage, the appellant is now
estopped from challenging the report on technical
grounds. The absence of timely objections weakens
the credibility of the appellant’s grievance and reflects
acquiescence to the procedure adopted by the Court.
Consequently, the argument that the appointment of
the Taluka Surveyor contravenes Section 54 of the
CPC, as amended, must be rejected not only on legal
grounds but also for want of procedural diligence on
the of the appellant. In view of the foregoing, Point
No. (i) is answered in the ‘ negative’ .”


12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Shri. Fakirappa S/o Laxman Muttalageri v. Shri.
5
Laxmappa S/o Siddappa Tapasi and Others , held as
follows:
“7. Section 54 of CPC reads as follows:
“ 54. Partition of estate or separation of
share.— Where the decree is for the partition of
an undivided estate assessed to the payment of
revenue to the Government, or for the separate
possession of a share of such an estate the
partition of the estate or the separation of the

5
RFA No.100259/2019 decided on 29.01.2025

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


share shall be made by the Collector or any
gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed
by him in this behalf, in accordance with the law
(if any) for the time being in force relating to
the partition, or the separate possession of
shares, of such estates.”
8. In Annapurna case (supra) , the effect is that
the Civil Court in final decree proceeding has
appointed ADLR (Addl. Director of Land Records) to
submit report but the ADLR has delegated the said
work to the Taluka Survey Officer. Therefore, in this
context, this Court has formed opinion that ADLR
could not delegate work to the Taluka Surveyor as it
is contrary to the order passed by the Civil Court. But
in the present case, the FDP court has appointed
Taluka Surveyor and Taluka Surveyor has submitted
report of division of properties and the same is
accepted by the FDP Court. This makes difference in
the facts in the above said case and in the present
case.
9. In the present case, the FDP Court as per
Section 54 of CPC has appointed Taluka Surveyor as
Court Commissioner under Section 54 of CPC. The
discretion is with the FDP Court to appoint revenue
officer not below the rank of Tahasildar or such other
person as the Court may appoint in this behalf. The
second limb of Section 54 of CPC so far as, appointing
a revenue officer is discretion to Court even to
appoint any such other person as Court
Commissioner. Therefore, it is not only to be
appointed Tahasildar or any other person as the Court
commissioner but also Civil Court and FDP Court has
vested power to appoint as Court Commissioner as
above stated. Therefore, while considering second
limb of Section 54 of CPC, the FDP Court is correct in
appointing Taluka Surveyor and final decree drawn is
perfectly justifiable which needs no interference.
Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence,
appeal is dismissed.”

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024



13. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
the judgment of this Court in the case of Annapurma (Smt.)
6
and Others v. Smt. Shantawwa and Another , wherein it
has held as under:
“16. In the instant case, as seen from the records
namely the final decree proceedings and the
Commissioner’s report, which forms part of the decree
passed by the Trial court, includes a sketch showing the
division of the property. Perusal of said sketch reveal that
same has been prepared by the Taluka Surveyor and is
counter signed by the ADLR. Pointing out the same, the
learned counsel for the appellants submits that the ADLR
had apparently further authorized/delegated the
responsibility to the Taluka Surveyor to carryout and
execute the commission work which otherwise ought to
have been done by the ADLR. Thus, he submits that at
the first instance, delegation of the authority by the Civil
Court to the ADLR to effect the partition itself was
contrary to Section 54 of the CPC (Karnataka
Amendment) and in the teeth of the said illegality, the
ADLR could not have further delegated the power to the
Taluka Surveyor to survey the land and effect partition, as
seen from the annexure to the decree.
17. From the aforesaid submissions and the material
on record, it is clear that the Trial Court while passing the
order dated 20.01.2018 has not kept in mind the
parameters and scope of Section 54 of the CPC and also
while accepting the said report has not looked into the
fact that the report has been prepared by the Taluka
Surveyor purportedly under the instructions of the ADLR.
Such a procedure cannot be countenanced.
18. This Court in the judgment and order dated
03.09.2021 passed in the case of SHIVANNA Vs.
GOWRAMMA AND OTHERS in RSA.No.1434/2016

6
HCR 2023 Kant. 463

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


while dealing with an identical matter, at para Nos.10 and
11 has held as under:
“10. In this regard, I have carefully considered the
Commissioners report produced in the paper book from
page Nos.36 to 55. A perusal of page No.44 of the paper
book would indicate that the Court Commissioners have not
only divided the property in terms of the preliminary decree
but have allotted each share to the respective parties. The
said report of the Commissioners is contrary to Section 54
of CPC. In this regard, it is the duty of the Court
Commissioners to see the feasibility of the division of
property in terms of Section 54 of CPC. However, in the
instant case, the Court Commissioners gone beyond the
warrant of Commission and allotted the share in favour of
the respective parties. However, the same has been
accepted by the trial Court and same has been affirmed by
the First Appellate Court. Perusal of the report of the
Commissioners would indicate that same is not in terms of
Section 54 of CPC, abdicates the power of the trial Court. At
this juncture, it is relevant to refer paragraph 11 of the
judgment of this Court in Smt.Obamma's case (supra),
which reads as under:
"11. In view of the amendment of Section 54 of
Code of Civil Procedure by Act No. 36 of 1998 with
effect from 1.2.2001, in all cases to which the
amended provision applies, the "partition shall be
made only by the Court and not by the revenue
officer or the Commissioner". The Court if
necessary on the report of the revenue officer not
below the rank of the Tahsildar to enable to it to
effect partition, it can effect partition on such
report and Court Commissioner cannot make a
division. In the present case, admittedly, the
division is made by the Court Commissioner and
not, by the Court. Therefore, the substantial
question of law has to be answered in negative
holding that the Final Decree Proceedings
accepting the division made by the Court
Commissioner is contrary to the amended
provisions of Section 54 of the Code of Civil
Procedure."
11. Applying the principle laid down by this Court in
the aforementioned case and on re-appreciating the
Commissioners report, which would indicate that the
Commissioners ought not to have divide and allot the
properties in favour of the respective parties in terms of
the preliminary decree as it is the duty of the trial Court
to allot the share in favour of the respective parties in

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


the suit and the said action on the part of the
Commissioners amounts to abdication of the duty of the
trial Court, which is not permissible under Section 54 of
CPC. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that
accepting the said report by the trial Court in FDP is
contrary to Section 54 of CPC, in view of the law laid
down by this Court in the aforementioned case.”
19. In view of the above facts and situation and
legal aspect of the matter, this Court is of the considered
view that the Trial Court erred in authorizing ADLR-Court
Commissioner to effect the partition to execute the
commission work and to submit their reports and the said
ADLR had further committed an error and illegality in
authorizing the Taluka Surveyor to carryout the task
assigned to ADLR.
20. The apprehension of the appellants that the
measurement and the value of the property not having
been considered cannot be overruled more so when the
Court which is obligated to draw the final decree and
effect the partition based on the report of the Revenue
Department, has delegated the said power at the hands of
ADLR. Such a course of action is illegal and contrary to
the provisions of law. Substantial questions of law are
answered accordingly. Consequently, the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the Trial
Court in FDP.No.2/2015 and the order dated
10.12.2020 passed by the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.11/2018 in and by which the
Trial court has accepted the report of the
Taluka Surveyor and has given shares of the
parties based on the said report cannot be
sustained and is set aside.

iii. Matter is remitted to the Trial Court to
reconsider the matter in the light of the
above legal and factual aspects of the matter
within an outer limit of two months from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of this
order and after affording sufficient

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


opportunity to the parties, pass appropriate
order in accordance with law.
iv. Since the parties are represented by the
learned counsel, they shall appear before the
Trial Court on 15.02.2023 without further
notice.
v. The Trial Court shall strictly adhere to
provision of Section 54 of CPC in appointing
the commissioner and shall discharge the
obligation itself in effecting the partition
based on the report to be submitted by the
competent Revenue Officer mentioned in
Section 54 (Karnataka Amendment) of the
CPC.”

14. A conjoint reading of Section 54 and the judicial
precedents relied upon by both learned counsel makes it clear
that the question raised herein is no longer res integra . It has
been held that the FDP Court has the discretion to appoint a
revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar or any such
other person as the Court may appoint in this behalf.

15. The second limb of Section 54 CPC so far as,
appointing a revenue officer is the discretion to the Court even
to appoint any such other officer as Court Commissioner.
Therefore, the appointment of a Tahsildar or any other suitable
person as a Court Commissioner is not mandatory, as the Civil
Court and the FDP Court are also vested with the power to

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


appoint a Court Commissioner for the purpose of carrying out
the necessary demarcation.

16. Accordingly, while considering the sole point for
consideration, this Court is of the view that the order passed by
the FDP Court appointing ADLR, Hukkeri, and an Advocate as
Court Commissioner to demarcate the suit schedule properties
is proper and legally justified. Hence, the point framed for
consideration is answered in the ‘negative’ .

17. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the
impugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

18. Hence, the following:
ORDER

a) The writ petition is dismissed .

b) The order dated 24.10.2024 passed on
I.A.No.I filed under Order XX Rule 18 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, in FDP No.6/2024 by the

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17424
WP No. 107387 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020210462024


Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri,
Itinerary Court at Sankeshwar, is
confirmed.

c) The FDP Court is directed to dispose of the
matter as expeditiously as possible. The
parties are directed to appear before the
FDP Court without awaiting further notice in
this regard.



Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE




PMP
CT:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34