The Calcutta High Court has ordered a trial court to appoint a qualified survey commissioner within two weeks to carry out a local boundary investigation in a long-pending property encroachment dispute, directing that the overall trial be concluded within six months.
In an order issued on August 28, Justice Uday Kumar overturned a February 1, 2025 trial court decision that had rejected a plaintiff’s plea for a spot survey. Justice Kumar held that documentary records alone cannot resolve physical boundary conflicts or prove ground-level obstruction, observing that a scientific survey is essential to bridge the divide between paper title and physical reality.
Limits Of Documentary Evidence In Boundary Disputes
The High Court observed that while title deeds establish legal ownership, they do not map out physical spatial coordinates or establish whether an obstruction exists on the ground. The court highlighted that oral witness statements are inherently subjective because individuals testify from memory or self-interest, whereas physical features such as boundary walls, drains, pathways, and water tanks occupy fixed geographical positions.
Justice Kumar noted that a court cannot assess inch-by-inch encroachments or determine structural blockages on a passage merely by examining historical property deeds.
Origins Of The Pathway Encroachment Suit
The litigation involves a woman who claims absolute ownership of a residential property inherited from her parents. According to her petition, a common passage located at the north-east corner of the plot serves as the exclusive entry and exit route for her home. The defendants own the adjacent property on the western flank of the passage.
The plaintiff alleged that on August 14, 2012, the defendants began obstructing the pathway in an attempt to incorporate it into their own holdings. The alleged encroachments included the unauthorized construction of a water reservoir and other structural violations across the passage. Following an initial police complaint, the woman initiated a civil lawsuit and subsequently requested the appointment of a survey commissioner to inspect the site, record measurements, and verify the exact location of the reservoir and the status of the passage.
Lower Court Rejection And Legal Arguments
The trial court had dismissed the application in February 2025 on the grounds that primary documentary evidence was sufficient to determine the existence of the pathway, ruling a physical survey entirely unnecessary.
Challenging that decision before the High Court, advocates Jayanta Kr Mondal and Sayantan Rakshit, representing the petitioner, argued that a survey commissioner functions as the eyes and ears of the court. They contended that disallowing scientific evidence undermines a fair trial because written titles cannot replace on-site boundary verification.
Opposing the plea, defense advocates Sounak Bhattacharya and Sounak Mandal argued that the plaintiff was using the commission as an improper mechanism to collect evidence and cover weaknesses in her pleadings, insisting that ownership and property existence must be demonstrated independently through primary documents.
High Court Directives For Timely Disposal
Addressing the procedural history, Justice Kumar expressed concern over the protracted pre-trial delays, remarking that prolonged litigation tests public confidence in civil justice. The court noted that while procedural delays caused by a party cannot be endorsed, refusing vital scientific evidence that reaches the core of the dispute was an erroneous remedy.
Setting aside the lower court’s order, the High Court directed the trial judge to appoint a competent, survey-knowing advocate commissioner within two weeks to perform a comprehensive local inspection and ordered the trial to be finalized preferably within six months.
