The Kerala High Court ruled that Trial Courts must assess and decide on the acceptability of the Advocate Commissioner’s Report and Plan before proceeding with the trial of a suit if a party challenges it.
Justice G. Girish emphasized that Trial Courts should not delay consideration of challenges against the Advocate Commissioner’s Report and Plan until the final stage of evidence in the suit. This delay can cause hardships to parties, inconvenience to the Court, and unnecessary delays in the proceedings.
“To prevent the compromise of serious errors and anomalies in the Commission Report and to avoid further inquiry being declined,” Justice G. Girish stated, “it is crucial to promptly address challenges to the Commission Report once a party files an application. Therefore, Trial Courts are expected to resolve issues regarding the acceptability of the Commission Report before proceeding with the trial of the suit, particularly if any party has raised objections to the Report and Plan.”
The case concerns a land acquisition appeal related to compensation deposited in the Additional Sub-Court, Thalassery for acquiring land for the construction of Kannur International Airport.
The Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA) purchased land from the first respondent for the airport’s construction. The first respondent did not receive compensation due to failure to produce title deeds before the Acquisition authority. Consequently, the Acquisition authority deposited compensation with the Sub-Court, Thalassery, as they could not establish property ownership. The appellants claim title over the disputed acquired property through a partition decree.
The first respondent filed a Commission Application before the Sub-Court, and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the disputed property, measure the acquired land, determine its location, nature, and layout, and prepare a plan.
The Report of the Advocate Commissioner was presented as evidence before the Trial Court.
Subsequently, the appellants filed an interlocutory application before the Trial Court requesting a remission of the Commission Report and directing the preparation of a new Commission Report and Plan, alleging that the original report was flawed due to improper measurements. The Trial Court disposed of this application by indicating that the appellants’ request for remission would be addressed after evidence had been heard in the case. The appellants challenged this order in various proceedings before the High Court, which eventually ruled that the Trial Court should address the remission of the Commission Report during the trial.
Consequently, the appellants pursued a land acquisition appeal in the High Court, arguing that the Reference Court had disregarded the High Court’s earlier directives and had relied on the flawed Commission Report and Plan to establish the first respondent’s rights over the disputed property.
The appellants contended that aside from the inaccuracies in the Commission Report, there was insufficient evidence to establish the first respondent’s title to the disputed property.
The Court determined that neither party had presented documents supporting their claim to the disputed property. It emphasized that the Reference Court had erred in relying solely on the flawed Commission Report and Plan to conclude in favor of the first respondent’s ownership. The Court noted that the Reference Court’s failure to consider the appellants’ request for remission of the Commission Report, despite prior directives from the High Court, was a serious error.
Quoting Rule 10(3) of Order XXVI of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Court clarified that a Court can order further investigation by an Advocate Commissioner if dissatisfied with the initial proceedings. The Court underscored that Rule 10(3) of Order XXVI does not specify the stage of litigation at which the Advocate Commissioner’s findings must be evaluated.
Consequently, the Court criticized the Reference Court for delaying the challenge to the Commission Report and Plan until the trial’s conclusion, after all evidence had been presented.
In light of these findings, the Court set aside the Trial Court’s decree and judgment and remanded the case to the Reference Court for fresh consideration based on a comprehensive and accurate Commission Report and Plan. The Court instructed the Advocate Commissioner to conduct further investigation based on pertinent records.
