FATEH SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a land acquisition matter, the State got a reference made under Section 18 (2-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The dispute was regarding the number of trees and their market value. The State, along with the reference, had produced on record certain reports of some officers regarding the nature and number of the trees. The evidence of the parties has yet to begin. The petitioner, to cut short the evidence, made an application for appointment of a commission to ascertain the number and nature of the trees standing at the spot. This was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge with the observation that as the possession of the land had been delivered on 4.11.1985, no useful purpose would be served by appointing local Commissioner and that the application seems to have been made to delay the proceedings. It passes my comprehension as to how the appointment of the local Commissioner was of no use or in what manner the petitioner wanted to delay the proceedings when as yet the evidence of neither of the parties has started. Still another observation made was that the petitioner, if so desired, could produce any technical man as his own witness. This reason again was wholly untenable, because a party has a right to get a local Commissioner appointed if the matter is such that it cannot be satisfactorily proved by other evidence. The learned Additional District Judge, thus, illegally refused to exercise his jurisdiction in declining the prayer for appointment of local Commissioner and his order is accordingly reversed. No costs.