APARNA PAL Vs. ANIL KUMAR GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated 01. 03. 06, whereby the report of the learned Commissioner was accepted.

(2.) IN moving the revisional application, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in accepting the report of the Commissioner, the learned trial Court was oblivious of the fact that the points sought by the petitioner to be determined on commission were not answered. In view of the categorical admission made by the Commissioner that he did not mention 'ka' scheduled in the field book, it cannot be assumed that the land as referred to in 'ka' schedule was actually surveyed.

(3.) DEFENDING the order of the Trial Court, the learned Counsel representing the opposite party has submitted that all points raised by the petitioners and the opposite party in their respective applications were answered by the commissioner. Thorough investigation of 'ka' and 'ka 1' scheduled lands having been made, the Trial Court rightly accepted the report. Links were properly measured, so was also the relay of the sketch map. Fixed points were also taken for the purpose of measurement of the lands. The report based on proper survey should not be rejected, as contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite party. Referring to the case of Balai Chandra Kundu and Anr. vs. Radharani De and Ors. reported in AIR 1986 CALCUTTA 396, it is submitted that when the Trial Court decides the matter even wrongly, no interference in revision is called for. It is contended the report should not be rejected simply because of the evidence that local witnesses was not taken by the Commissioner. The finding of the Trial Court should not be interfered with even if it is found that there is discrepancy in the aforesaid report. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. , reported in AIR 1984 sc 38, to substantiate the view that mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority" and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error.