Karnataka HC Upholds Taluka Surveyor’s Appointment To Divide Agricultural Land In Partition Case

In brief

The question

1. Whether appointment of a Taluka Surveyor as Court Commissioner to demarcate agricultural lands was contrary to Section 54 CPC, as amended in Karnataka.

The court held

The Court answered the framed issue in the negative, holding that appointment of the commissioner(s) was not contrary to Section 54 CPC.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition, confirmed the order dated 24 October 2024, and directed the FDP Court to proceed expeditiously, with the parties to appear without further notice.

01Facts

The respondent obtained a preliminary decree in O.S. No. 101/2018 granting her a one-third share in the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.

pp. 2–4

She then commenced final decree proceedings and sought appointment of commissioners to divide the properties.

pp. 2–4

The FDP Court appointed the Taluka Surveyor to deal with the agricultural lands and an advocate to deal with the house properties and open spaces.

pp. 2–4

The petitioners challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227, contending that the Taluka Surveyor was below the rank of Tahsildar and could not be appointed for the task.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether appointment of a Taluka Surveyor as Court Commissioner to demarcate agricultural lands was contrary to Section 54 CPC, as amended in Karnataka.

p. 5

ii.2. Whether the FDP Court’s order appointing commissioners for the suit properties warranted interference under Article 227.

p. 17

03Law Applied

Section 54 CPC governs partition of an estate assessed to Government revenue; the Court considered it alongside the Karnataka State amendment and held that the FDP Court may appoint a revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar or “such other person” competent to carry out the required work.

pp. 5–6, 16

The Court relied on Malagouda S/o Shankreppa Mugali v. Shantawwa W/o Shivangouda Patil, RFA No. 100070/2024, and Fakirappa S/o Laxman Muttalageri v. Laxmappa S/o Siddappa Tapasi, RFA No. 100259/2019, for the proposition that the statutory discretion permits appointment of a suitably competent person, including a Taluka Surveyor.

pp. 6–12

It distinguished Annapurna (Smt.) v. Shantawwa, HCR 2023 Kant. 463, which concerned an ADLR’s impermissible delegation of court-assigned work to a Taluka Surveyor.

pp. 13–16

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151 Section 54

04Reasoning

The Court treated the Karnataka amendment’s reference to “such other person” as conferring discretion beyond appointment of a revenue officer of Tahsildar rank.

pp. 6–16

It reasoned that a Taluka Surveyor’s technical competence could make the officer a suitable appointee, and that direct appointment by the FDP Court was materially different from the impermissible sub-delegation considered in Annapurna.

pp. 6–16

It therefore found no legal basis to interfere with the FDP Court’s appointment order.

p. 17

05Holding

The Court answered the framed issue in the negative, holding that appointment of the commissioner(s) was not contrary to Section 54 CPC.

pp. 17–18

It dismissed the writ petition, confirmed the order dated 24 October 2024, and directed the FDP Court to proceed expeditiously, with the parties to appear without further notice.

pp. 17–18

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF