Appointment of a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC in Boundary and Demarcation Disputes: What the Courts Have Held

Many land disputes come down to a question that sounds simple: where does one person’s land end and the neighbour’s begin? Take a common situation. A says that B’s new boundary wall stands two feet inside A’s plot. B says the wall is entirely on B’s own land. Each side produces revenue records and a sketch map, and each side’s witnesses are sure of their version. The judge, sitting in a courtroom, cannot see the land, and the papers alone may not show where the line actually runs.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) offers a way to deal with this. Under Order 26 Rule 9 (Order XXVI Rule 9) of the CPC, a civil court can appoint a neutral person, usually called a Local Commissioner, to visit the land, carry out a demarcation (measure and mark the boundary) and report back. This article looks at what that power involves, how the Supreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court have used it in boundary and encroachment cases, and where the courts have said it should not be used. It sets out one reading of the decided cases; how they apply in any particular suit will depend on its own facts.

What Is a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC?

A “commission”, in this sense, is an instruction from the court to a person to carry out a specific task on the court’s behalf. Section 75 of the CPC allows courts to issue commissions for a handful of purposes, one of which is to make a local investigation, that is, to inspect a place and find out facts on the spot.

Order XXVI Rule 9 sets out when this can be done. It says that where the court thinks a local investigation is “requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute” (in plain terms, to clear up a point on which the parties disagree), it may issue a commission to a person it considers suitable, who will carry out the investigation and report to the court. The same rule also allows a local investigation to find the market value of property, or the amount of mesne profits (profits made by someone wrongly in possession), damages or annual net profits. In land cases, the person appointed is often a revenue officer such as a Tehsildar or Revenue Inspector working with a surveyor, or an advocate assisted by a surveyor.

Order XXVI Rule 10 deals with what happens next. In practice, the Commissioner visits the site, usually after giving notice to both sides, takes measurements with reference to the revenue map, records what the parties say, and files a written report, often with a sketch. Under Rule 10, that report and the evidence collected with it are evidence in the suit and form part of the record. Either side can object to it, the Commissioner can be questioned in court about how the work was done, and if the court is not satisfied it can order a further inquiry.

One point is easy to miss. The Commissioner does not decide the case. The report is one piece of evidence, and the judge still has to weigh it along with everything else on record.

Why Boundary and Encroachment Disputes Are Treated Differently

“Demarcation” means marking out on the ground where the boundaries of a plot lie. “Encroachment” means occupying or building on part of someone else’s land. In both kinds of dispute the real question is physical: where is the line, and is the structure on one side of it or the other? Witness statements and rival sketch maps can only go so far in answering that. Unless both sides accept the same map (often called an “agreed map”), a measurement on the spot may be the most reliable way of finding out. This is why, in the cases discussed below, the courts have often treated a local investigation as especially useful in these disputes, while still keeping it within limits.

What the Supreme Court Has Said

Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup, (2008) 8 SCC 671

In Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup, (2008) 8 SCC 671 (judgment dated 16 July 2008), the only real dispute between the parties was the demarcation of the suit land (the land the case was about). The trial court had turned down an application to appoint a Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9, and the High Court had dismissed the second appeal (an appeal to the High Court after the first appeal, which is usually heard in the district court) without examining the point. The Supreme Court observed that “in view of the fact that it was a case of demarcation of the disputed land, it was appropriate for the court to direct the investigation by appointing a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC”. It said the High Court should have considered whether a Commissioner ought to be appointed, set aside the High Court’s order and sent the second appeal back to it for a fresh decision.

The judgment is short and does not lay down detailed guidelines. Even so, it has been cited in a large number of later decisions, particularly by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, as support for the view that a demarcation dispute is ordinarily a suitable case for a local investigation.

Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, (2004) 10 SCC 65

Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, (2004) 10 SCC 65 was a suit alleging encroachment. When the Supreme Court sent the matter back to the trial court, it directed the trial court first to see whether an undisputed or proved map showing the encroached area was available on record. If there was none, the trial court was to “appoint an Advocate-Commissioner assisted by a person proficient in survey to draw up a map” marking the area encroached upon. The direction suggests that where no reliable map is available, the Court saw a survey on the spot as the sensible way to find out what had actually happened.

Ram Lal v. Salig Ram, (2020) 11 SCC 590

What if the Commissioner’s work turns out to be flawed? In Ram Lal v. Salig Ram, (2020) 11 SCC 590 (judgment dated 4 February 2019), a demarcation report had been obtained in an encroachment suit, but the High Court found that the Commissioner had not followed the prescribed method, and it dismissed the suit for that reason. The Supreme Court described the lapse as “only a matter of irregularity” and said that “the proper course for the High Court was either to issue a fresh commission or to remand the matter for reconsideration” rather than dismissing the whole suit. (To “remand” is to send a case back to a lower court to be decided again.) The case was sent back for a fresh commission. On this reasoning, a defective demarcation is to be corrected rather than held against the party who asked for it.

How much weight does the report carry?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the report is evidence to be tested, not a final finding. In Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 INSC 702 (order dated 4 August 2023), it observed that the evidentiary value of a Commissioner’s report “is a matter to be tested in the suit and is open to objections including cross-examination”, and that the report “does not by and of itself amount to a substantive finding on matters in dispute”. Earlier, in Soni Dineshbhai Manilal v. Jagjivan Mulchand Chokshi, (2007) 13 SCC 293, the Court said a report “is to be treated as evidence in the suit” and “can be set aside only upon assignment of proper and sufficient reasons”, adding that the Commissioner “is to assist the Court”. On this approach, a party unhappy with a report would usually need to raise specific objections, and the court then decides how far to rely on it.

The same tool has also been used after a case is decided. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Ajay Bhatia(judgment dated 22 September 2022), where possession had been taken of more land than the decree (the court’s final order) covered, the Supreme Court directed that a Revenue Officer be appointed as Local Commissioner to demarcate the decreed plot and that any excess land be restored.

Where the Power Stops: A Commission Is Not Meant to Collect Evidence for One Side

In a civil case, each side is expected to bring its own evidence. The court decides on what is placed before it; it does not normally go out to gather proof for one party. The Supreme Court made this point in Padam Sen v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 218, where a lower court had appointed a Commissioner to seize a party’s account books. The Supreme Court held that this was beyond the court’s power, observing that “it is no business of the Court to collect evidence for a party”.

Applying this to land disputes is not always straightforward. Measuring a boundary that both sides dispute can be seen as clearing up a matter in dispute, which Rule 9 permits. Asking a Commissioner to establish, say, who has been in possession for many years may look more like asking the court to prove one side’s case. Where a particular application falls is often a matter of judgment. The Madhya Pradesh cases discussed below, such as Dipjhari Devi and Shivnarayan, show courts reaching different results where a revenue demarcation already existed.

How the Madhya Pradesh High Court Has Approached Boundary Disputes

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dealt with this question many times. As early as Durga Prasad v. P. Foujdar, 1975 MPLJ 801, a Division Bench (a bench of two judges) held that where encroachment is disputed and there is no agreed map, the question cannot be settled without a Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9. Later decisions such as Prembai v. Ghanshyam, 2010 (3) MPLJ 345, Jaswant v. Dindayal, 2011 (2) MPLJ 576, Loknath Gautam v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 600, and Suman Pandagre v. Madhu Pandagre, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 6030 followed a similar line. In Suman Pandagre, for example, the High Court set aside a trial court’s refusal to appoint a Commissioner to identify a disputed by-lane, observing that in demarcation disputes the exercise of the power is necessary, though discretionary, and that an application can be made at any stage.

Bagdiram v. Ram Singh, 2025:MPHC-IND:5964

In Bagdiram v. Ram Singh, Second Appeal No. 23 of 2005, decided on 6 March 2025 (2025:MPHC-IND:5964; 2025 (3) MPLJ 116), the Indore Bench found that the dispute was “purely a boundary dispute” which “ought not to have been decided by the Courts below without appointing a local Commissioner”. It set aside the decisions of both lower courts and sent the suit back to the trial court (a “remand”) for a Commissioner to be appointed. In paragraph 17, the Court summed up the earlier cases. The central part of that paragraph reads:

“… if there is a dispute about demarcation of boundaries or where there is a dispute as to encroachment … and for the purpose of determining identity of land by local investigation in absence of an agreed map, exercise of power under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC by appointment of a competent Commissioner is necessary. … When there is a dispute about demarcation, it is the duty of the Court itself to issue commission and it can issue such commission suo moto also … For that purpose no application is required. … Though exercise of power is discretionary but in case local investigation is requisite and proper it should be exercised so that a just decision is rendered in the case …”

The effect of Bagdiram, as the High Court framed it, is that in a genuine boundary or encroachment dispute with no agreed map, appointing a Commissioner is necessary and is the court’s own duty; that the court may do so suo motu, that is, on its own even if neither side asks; that an application can be made at any stage, including in appeal; and that the power, though discretionary, should be used where an inspection is needed for a just decision.

Krishnapal Singh v. Rambhushan Chaturvedi, 2026:MPHC-JBP:61749

The same approach was followed in Krishnapal Singh v. Rambhushan Chaturvedi, Second Appeal No. 3033 of 2018, decided on 12 August 2026 (2026:MPHC-JBP:61749). The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had built a boundary wall and a water tank on about 0.010 hectare of the plaintiff’s land. Both lower courts had decreed the suit, that is, decided it in the plaintiff’s favour, without any inspection of the site. On the defendants’ appeal, the High Court asked whether the lower courts had gone wrong in not appointing a Commissioner, answered that question in the defendants’ favour, set aside the decrees and remanded the suit for a Commissioner to be appointed. Further evidence was limited to the Commissioner’s report. Later decisions of the Jabalpur Bench, such as Ram Sabad v. Ram Karan (23 September 2026)and Dipjhari Devi v. Gourav (6 October 2026), have taken a similar course.

The Gwalior Bench: Jai Gopal Sharma v. State of M.P., 2026:MPHC-GWL:11489

In Jai Gopal Sharma v. State of M.P., First Appeal No. 65 of 2008, decided on 8 April 2026, the Gwalior Bench observed that “when there is a boundary dispute, then the same should be decided by appointing a Local Commissioner”, and held that the trial court had gone wrong in rejecting the application. The Court set aside the decree, appointed the Collector, Morena (the senior revenue officer of the district) as Local Commissioner with a direction to be personally present at the demarcation, and sent the suit back.

Does a revenue demarcation done before the suit make a Commissioner unnecessary?

Not necessarily, according to Dipjhari Devi v. Gourav, 2026:MPHC-JBP:79768. Relying on an earlier Division Bench decision in Keshav Singh v. Dhantobai, 2009 (II) MPWN 2, the Court treated a revenue demarcation done before the suit as only a piece of evidence that has to be proved like any other document. A report by a court-appointed Commissioner, by contrast, is prepared on the spot under the court’s direction and with the parties present. As the next section shows, however, an existing demarcation has sometimes been a reason for refusing a fresh one.

When Courts Have Declined to Appoint a Commissioner

The High Court has not treated every request for a Commissioner as one that must be granted. In Ansuiya Bai v. Rajendra Parsai, W.P. No. 1915 of 2014, decided on 3 April 2018, the Indore Bench said that Order XXVI Rule 9 “cannot be used for collection of evidence”, that its scope “is very limited”, and that the report “is merely a piece of evidence and not binding on the trial Court”. In Shivnarayan v. Shyamlal, M.P. No. 5362 of 2022, decided on 14 March 2023, the Court declined to order a fresh demarcation where a revenue demarcation already existed and it was for the plaintiff to prove it, while leaving the trial court free to appoint a Commissioner later if that became necessary. In Dashrath Prasad v. Prem Kumar Tripathi, M.P. No. 1881 of 2024, decided on 24 April 2024, an application that the Court saw as an attempt to collect evidence was rejected, the Court observing that the trial court cannot hand over to a Commissioner its own job of deciding the dispute. And in Dayaram v. Kesarbai, M.P. No. 2252 of 2019, decided on 30 March 2022, a Commissioner was refused because the existence of the disputed lane was already admitted, so there was nothing left to clarify on the ground.

These decisions can be read alongside Bagdiram rather than against it. One way of reconciling them is this. Where the dispute is genuinely about where a boundary lies, which land is which, or whether and how far someone has encroached, and there is no agreed map, the courts have generally been willing to send a Commissioner. Where the request appears to be an attempt to prove one party’s own case, where the relevant facts are admitted, or where a demarcation is already on record and only its accuracy is in question, the courts have sometimes declined. Which side of that line a case falls on will often depend on how the dispute is pleaded and on the court’s view of the record.

Points a Party May Wish to Consider

Based on the cases above, a few practical considerations may be relevant, although each suit will have its own features. An application under Order XXVI Rule 9 is more likely to succeed if it explains clearly what is in dispute on the ground (the boundary, the identity of the land or the extent of an alleged encroachment) and why the documents on record do not resolve it. An application that reads as a request to prove possession or title (ownership) may face the objection raised in Padam Sen and Ansuiya Bai.

Although Bagdiram and Krishnapal Singh indicate that the point can be raised at any stage, asking early, before evidence is recorded, gives both sides the chance to deal with the report during the trial. In land matters courts have often appointed a revenue officer with a surveyor, or an advocate assisted by a surveyor; in Jai Gopal Sharma the Court chose the Collector himself. Once a report is filed, specific objections and, where appropriate, questioning of the Commissioner in court are the usual ways of testing it; Ram Lal suggests that if the method was faulty, a fresh or further inquiry may be the remedy.

Conclusion

The decided cases suggest that Indian courts, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in particular, have come to regard a Local Commissioner as an important and often necessary tool in boundary and encroachment disputes where no agreed map exists. The Supreme Court’s observations in Haryana Waqf Board, Amrendra Pratap Singh and Ram Lal point in that direction, and the High Court’s decisions in Bagdiram, Krishnapal Singh and Jai Gopal Sharma go further in describing it as the court’s duty in such cases. At the same time, Padam Sen and decisions such as Ansuiya Bai and Dashrath Prasadshow that the power has limits and that it is not meant to be used to gather evidence for one side. Where a particular suit falls between these lines is seldom clear at the outset, and it is usually worked out from the pleadings and the state of the record.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. The position may vary with the facts of a case and with later decisions; readers should consult counsel on their particular situation.

References (with links to the judgments)

1. Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup, (2008) 8 SCC 671 : (2008) 4 MPHT 306, Supreme Court, judgment dated 16 July 2008
2. Padam Sen v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 218 : (1961) 1 SCR 884, Supreme Court (three-Judge Bench), judgment dated 27 September 1960
3. Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, (2004) 10 SCC 65 : AIR 2004 SC 3782, Supreme Court, judgment dated 21 November 2003
4. Soni Dineshbhai Manilal v. Jagjivan Mulchand Chokshi, (2007) 13 SCC 293 : AIR 2008 SC 887, Supreme Court, judgment dated 14 December 2007
5. Ram Lal v. Salig Ram, (2020) 11 SCC 590, Supreme Court, judgment dated 4 February 2019
6. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Ajay Bhatia, Supreme Court, judgment dated 22 September 2022
7. Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 INSC 702, Diary No. 31345 of 2023, Supreme Court, order dated 4 August 2023
8. Durga Prasad v. P. Foujdar, 1975 MPLJ 801 : 1975 JLJ 440 (Madhya Pradesh High Court, Division Bench) — as cited in Bagdiram and Krishnapal Singh
9. Prembai v. Ghanshyam, 2010 (3) MPLJ 345 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) — as cited in Bagdiram and Krishnapal Singh
10. Jaswant v. Dindayal, 2011 (2) MPLJ 576, Second Appeal No. 97 of 2011, Madhya Pradesh High Court, judgment dated 31 March 2011
11. Loknath Gautam v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 600 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) — as cited in Bagdiram, Krishnapal Singh and Suman Pandagre
12. Suman Pandagre v. Madhu Pandagre, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 6030, W.P. No. 10376 of 2017, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur), judgment dated 23 March 2022
13. Bagdiram v. Ram Singh, Second Appeal No. 23 of 2005, 2025:MPHC-IND:5964 : 2025 (3) MPLJ 116, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore), judgment dated 6 March 2025 — official PDF
14. Krishnapal Singh v. Rambhushan Chaturvedi, Second Appeal No. 3033 of 2018, 2026:MPHC-JBP:61749, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur), judgment dated 12 August 2026
15. Jai Gopal Sharma v. State of M.P., First Appeal No. 65 of 2008, 2026:MPHC-GWL:11489, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior), judgment dated 8 April 2026
16. Ram Sabad v. Ram Karan, Second Appeal No. 1141 of 1999, 2026:MPHC-JBP:75995, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur), judgment dated 23 September 2026
17. Dipjhari Devi v. Gourav, Second Appeal No. 1854 of 2024, 2026:MPHC-JBP:79768, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur), judgment dated 6 October 2026
18. Ansuiya Bai v. Rajendra Parsai, W.P. No. 1915 of 2014, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore), order dated 3 April 2018
19. Shivnarayan v. Shyamlal, M.P. No. 5362 of 2022, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore), order dated 14 March 2023
20. Dashrath Prasad v. Prem Kumar Tripathi, M.P. No. 1881 of 2024, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur), order dated 24 April 2024
21. Dayaram v. Kesarbai, M.P. No. 2252 of 2019, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur), order dated 30 March 2022
22. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 75; Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10

Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/is-property-purchased-by-husband-in-wifes-name/