"Appointment of Advocate Commissioner in Land Disputes Involving Identification, Location, or Measurement"

In Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup (1) (2008) 8 SCC 671, the Supreme Court held that if it was a case of demarcation of the disputed land, it was appropriate for the court to direct the investigation by appointing a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. 39. In Badana Mutyalu and others v. Palli Appalaraju (2) 2013 (6) ALT 26 = 2013 (5) ALD 376, this Court has held that in situations where there is controversy as to identification, location or measurement of the land, local investigation should be done by appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. 40. This was reiterated in Jajula Koteshwar Rao v. Ravulapalli Masthan Rao (3) 2016 (1) ALT 134 = 2015 (6) ALD 483 that the object of the local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is to collect evidence at the instance of the party who relies on the same and which evidence cannot be taken in Court but can be taken only from the peculiar nature, on the spot. This Court held that the Commissioner in effect is a projection of the Court appointed for a particular purpose; and where there is an allegation of encroachment by one party which is denied by the other, oral evidence cannot come to an aid of a party and an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed to ascertain this fact; and that. 41. Thus when there is a dispute of localization or demarcation of property, the best course of action is to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner / Surveyor for localization.