Calcutta High Court Rejects Survey Report, Orders Fresh Investigation
The Calcutta High Court has made a significant observation regarding property rights. Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury recently stated that every person holds the right to use and enjoy property lawfully occupied by them without interference from others.
The court emphasized that the right to property remains a constitutional right, even though it is not classified as a fundamental right. This declaration came during a hearing concerning a disputed property in Purba Bardhman district.
Court Orders New Survey Under Special Officer
Justice Chowdhury allowed a petition that opposed a previous survey report of the disputed property. The court found the earlier survey to be mechanical and insufficient for proper adjudication.
In the interest of justice, the High Court ordered a fresh survey to be conducted under the supervision of a special officer. Advocate Raja Ghosh has been appointed as the special officer for this investigation.
The court directed that the survey and measurement work must occur under the special officer's direct supervision. All parties involved must furnish property maps to the special officer for necessary actions.
Specific Directions for the Investigation
The Calcutta High Court issued clear instructions for the new investigation:
- The special officer must review the surveyor's report thoroughly
- If satisfied with the findings, the special officer will submit the report to the trial court
- The entire investigation must be completed within four weeks
- The report must be clear and specific regarding property boundaries and any encroachments
The court noted that clear and specific reports make it easier for judicial authorities to arrive at fair decisions in property disputes.
Background of the Property Dispute
The case originated from a title suit involving allegations of encroachment and interference with peaceful possession. The plaintiff sought permanent and mandatory injunctions against the alleged encroachment.
During initial proceedings, the trial court ordered a local investigation. An advocate commissioner subsequently submitted a report along with a case map and field book.
On May 30, 2023, the trial court accepted this commissioner's report, noting it was based on scientific survey methods and contained no fatal defects.
Arguments Presented Before the High Court
Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, the defendants approached the Calcutta High Court. They argued that the trial court accepted the commissioner's report mechanically without addressing serious objections about how the survey was conducted.
Advocates Sounak Bhattacharya and Sounak Mandal represented the defendants. They pointed out that the commissioner admitted during cross-examination that he had not relied on record settlement maps of the property. This omission, they argued, made the report incomplete and potentially misleading.
The defense counsel emphasized that these deficiencies went to the root of the matter and could not be dismissed as mere technicalities.
Opposing the petition, advocate Bipasha Bhattacharyya and others argued that acceptance of a commissioner's report represents an interlocutory step, not a conclusive determination. They contended that the High Court should not interfere under its supervisory jurisdiction unless the trial court's order was perverse.
Court's Final Ruling and Implications
After considering all arguments, Justice Chowdhury ruled in favor of ordering a fresh investigation. The court found merit in the defendants' objections regarding the survey methodology.
This ruling reinforces the importance of thorough and proper investigation in property disputes. It also highlights the judiciary's role in protecting constitutional property rights against mechanical or incomplete legal processes.
The case will now proceed with the fresh survey ordered by the High Court, with all parties awaiting the special officer's findings within the stipulated four-week timeframe.
