Boundary disputes necessitate demarcation through local commission as oral evidence is insufficient to determine encroachment.

The parties are relatives and successors-in-interest to a partition of ancestral property involving Survey No. 1100.

Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) alleged that the appellants (defendants) encroached upon his specific share, Survey No. 1100/3, while raising constructions.

The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit on 31.10.2023.

On appeal, the First Appellate Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter on 11.05.2024, directing the Trial Court to appoint a Revenue Officer as a Commissioner to demarcate the property and measure the alleged encroachment.

The appellants challenged this remand order, arguing that a prior Revenue Inspector’s report (Ex. D-4) and a Tahsildar’s order (Ex. D-5) already established that no encroachment existed.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in remanding the case for fresh demarcation in light of the existing Revenue Inspector's report and Tahsildar's order.

2. Whether the appointment of a Local Commissioner is necessary to resolve a dispute involving boundaries and encroachment.

The Court emphasized that boundary disputes involving survey numbers and alleged encroachments cannot be decided solely on oral evidence and require a local inspection to define "meets and bounds".

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup and others, (2008) 8 SCC 671, which mandates the appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation when boundaries are in dispute.

The Court further clarified the distinction between appointing a commission to collect evidence on "possession" (prohibited) versus "demarcation" (permissible), distinguishing the present facts from Ashok Kumar Patel and others v. Ram Niranjan Dubey and others, (2007) (3) M.P.H.T. 419.

The Court found that the Trial Court had reached a conclusion without any scientific demarcation of the boundaries.

Upon examining the appellants' relied-upon document, Ex. D-4 (Revenue Inspector’s report), the Court noted significant procedural infirmities: the Inspector failed to measure the specific Survey No. 1100/3, failed to prepare a spot map, and reached conclusions regarding construction without taking actual measurements.

The Court reasoned that since "bare eyes cannot assist" in defining the boundaries of open land, the report lacked credibility.

It further reasoned that while a court cannot appoint a commissioner to determine who is in possession of a property, it is duty-bound to appoint one to ascertain where the physical boundaries lie in cases of encroachment.

Consequently, the remand order was deemed necessary to achieve a just determination of the dispute.

The Court held that in cases where boundaries are in dispute, local inspection for demarcation is indispensable and does not amount to an illegal collection of evidence regarding possession.

The Trial Court was directed to comply with the order to appoint a competent Revenue Officer to demarcate the property and ascertain the extent of any encroachment.