A Taluka Surveyor is not inferior to a Tahasildar for partition surveys under Section 54 CPC.

The appellants, who were defendants in O.S. No. 2635/2003 and respondents in FDP No. 95/2009, challenged the final decree dated 2 February 2026 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

The original suit had been decreed by granting the plaintiffs and defendants half shares in suit schedule items 1 to 14.

In RFA No. 817/2009, the High Court modified the preliminary decree on 13 October 2022, and that decision attained finality.

During the final decree proceedings, the FDP Court appointed the Taluka Surveyor as Court Commissioner to divide the properties by metes and bounds.

After accepting the Surveyor’s report, it allotted Portion ‘A’ to the plaintiffs and Portion ‘B’ to the defendants.

The defendants contended that the Taluka Surveyor was inferior in rank to the Tahasildar under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the report failed to account for land allegedly used for a road, acquired land, and encroachments.

The plaintiffs supported the report but agreed to an exchange of the portions allotted in respect of suit schedule item No. 5.

Whether the Taluka Surveyor/Court Commissioner was of an inferior rank to the Tahasildar for conducting the survey and preparing the report under Section 54 of the CPC?

Whether liberty could be granted to the plaintiffs and defendants to assert their respective rights over portions allegedly encroached upon by third parties in separate proceedings?

The Court applied Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning the partition of estates and the division of property by the appropriate revenue authority.

It also considered Order XX Rules 12 and 18 CPC, under which final decrees for partition are drawn after the shares declared in the preliminary decree are worked out by metes and bounds.

The Court held that the relevant comparison under Section 54 is not merely the general administrative hierarchy of officers but their competence and functional authority in the particular work assigned.

A Taluka Surveyor, being the officer heading survey work at the taluka level, is not inferior to the Tahasildar in matters of conducting surveys.

The Court also relied on the principle that non-recording of alleged encroachments in a partition survey does not extinguish the parties’ title or possession claims and that such claims may be pursued in appropriate independent proceedings.

The judgment cited Obamma v. Boraiah and connected parties, LAWS (KAR)-2016-7-136, in support of the appellants’ submissions.

The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that appointment of the Taluka Surveyor violated Section 54 CPC.

It reasoned that although the Tahasildar is the head of the revenue administration at the taluka level, the Taluka Surveyor is the officer with specialised authority and expertise in conducting surveys.

Therefore, the Surveyor could validly be appointed as Court Commissioner to effect division by metes and bounds, and the report could form the basis of the final decree.

The Court further held that the alleged omission of 2.5 guntas used for road formation did not render the survey report incorrect; the parties were free to pursue compensation against the Gram Panchayat if the land had been used without acquisition or payment of compensation.

Similarly, the Surveyor was not required to conclusively adjudicate alleged third-party encroachments in final decree proceedings.

Non-inclusion of such portions in the report did not extinguish the parties’ rights, and both sides were granted liberty to establish title and possession in separate proceedings.

Since the parties agreed to exchange the allotments relating to suit item No. 5, the Court modified the final decree to reflect that agreement.

It answered the second issue in the affirmative, reserving liberty to both parties to pursue appropriate proceedings concerning land allegedly encroached upon by third parties.

The appeal was disposed of without setting aside the final decree.

However, the allotments concerning suit schedule item No. 5 were modified by interchanging Portion ‘A’ and Portion ‘B’: Portion ‘B’ was allotted to the plaintiffs and Portion ‘A’ to the defendants.

The FDP Court was directed to draw the final decree in accordance with this modification.