In a landmark approach to integrating modern technology into judicial processes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court sought assistance from artificial intelligence, specifically ChatGPT, to understand the efficacy of Differential GPS (DGPS) in resolving a property dispute. The judgment, delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta, highlighted the importance of DGPS in achieving precision and fairness in property demarcation.
Case Background
The case, Kuldeep Kumar Sharma v. Randeep Rana (CR No.3077 of 2023), stemmed from a decree issued in March 2017 granting specific performance of an agreement to sell a property in Karnal. The property included a showroom and plot delineated in a site plan. The judgment debtor, Kuldeep Kumar Sharma, had repeatedly raised objections to the demarcation of the property, despite three separate surveys conducted over time.
Key Legal Issues
1. Accuracy of Property Demarcation: The primary contention was whether DGPS technology, used in the third demarcation, could provide accurate and reliable measurements for legal purposes.
2. Examination of Local Commissioners: The petitioner sought to examine the Naib Tehsildar and the accompanying Junior Engineer to question the DGPS methodology.
Court’s Observations
Justice Deepak Gupta addressed the reliance on DGPS technology by consulting ChatGPT. The AI explained that DGPS provides centimeter-level accuracy by correcting signal errors from satellites in real-time. It enhances property demarcation by:
– Offering real-time location data with high precision.
– Resolving disputes through alignment with cadastral maps and government records.
– Saving time and costs compared to traditional methods.
The court noted, “The system of DGPS, with its ability to provide centimeter-level accuracy, must replace outdated methods of property demarcation using manual measurements and fixed points.”
Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the petitioner’s repeated attempts to delay the execution of the 2017 decree. The court emphasized the reliability of DGPS technology in measuring the property area, which varied insignificantly across the three reports—483, 483.23, and 483.10 square yards. Justice Gupta observed, “The era of manual demarcation must yield to modern technology, ensuring precision and efficiency in resolving property disputes.”
The petitioner’s plea to examine the Local Commissioner and Junior Engineer was denied, with the court ruling that their reports were credible and conducted in accordance with modern standards. The court further highlighted the respondent’s willingness to comply with the findings, even if based on the maximum measurement.
