Commissioner’s Report Is Not a Rubber Stamp — Court Must Apply Judicial Mind Before Final Decree: Orissa High Court

In a significant reaffirmation of judicial standards in partition suits, the Orissa High Court dismissed a challenge filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, upholding the trial court’s acceptance of the final decree commissioner’s report in a long-running partition suit. The High Court held that once a court has independently evaluated and accepted the commissioner’s report after hearing objections and recording satisfaction, the scope for supervisory interference is severely restricted.

The decision was rendered in case challenging the trial court’s final decree proceedings in C.S. No. 43 of 2013 (F.D.). The petitioners, who were defendants in the original suit, alleged that the commissioner’s report resulted in excess land allotment to the plaintiffs and that the defendants were denied proper road access to reach the public road.

Justice A.C. Behera, delivering the judgment, dismissed the petition, observing:

“When the trial court has recorded satisfaction on the commissioner’s report after full inquiry and cross-examination, and has provided cogent reasons to reject the objections, there is no scope for interference under Article 227. The supervisory jurisdiction is not an appellate power.”

“Objections Are Not Mere Formalities — But Once Court Applies Mind and Records Satisfaction, Interference Is Not Warranted”

The core of the petitioners’ challenge lay in their objections to the report dated 14.11.2017 filed by the civil court Amin commissioner, alleging two defects:
(i) An alleged excess allotment of 900 sq. links to the plaintiffs, and
(ii) Absence of adequate road access to the defendants.

The trial court, after conducting a detailed inquiry under Order 20 Rule 18 and Order 26 Rule 14 CPC, examined the commissioner on oath and allowed cross-examination by the objecting defendants. The trial court concluded that the excess area allotted to the plaintiffs was, in fact, already in their possession, and that the defendants were provided road access through the eastern side of their allotted land, which was found to be “much specious” and sufficient.

Justice Behera noted that the objections had been duly considered:“The reported and evidence of the commissioner is going to show that the said excess area marked as ‘R’ in the partition map was/is in possession of the plaintiffs and nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to discard the same.”

On the second objection, the Court agreed with the trial court's findings:“The house of the plaintiffs is situated adjacent to the public road on the northern side, hence their frontage is wider, whereas the defendants have also been given road access in the eastern side, which is sufficiently spacious.”

“Commissioner’s Report Is Not Automatically Binding — But Court's Independent Satisfaction After Inquiry Grants It Legal Sanctity”

Referring to well-established precedents including Kantaru Sahu v. Dharma Sahu, Surya Prakash Tiwari v. Smt. Shanti Devi, and Jadunath Naik v. Bipra Charan Naik, the Court reiterated that:

“Even if no objection is filed to a commissioner’s report, the court is not bound to accept it mechanically. The court must be satisfied as to its correctness and legality after examining all aspects, including objections if any.”

However, once such satisfaction is recorded, especially following due inquiry and evidentiary process, the High Court cannot step in merely because the losing party disagrees with the outcome.

Justice Behera emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227, observing:“Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to substitute the High Court’s opinion for that of the lower court unless there is gross perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error.”

In the present case, no such infirmity was found. The trial court’s order dated 07.01.2019, which rejected the defendants’ objections and accepted the commissioner’s report, was found to be legally sustainable.

“Possession Is Key — Allotment Must Follow Actual Use by Co-sharers in Partition Suits”: Orissa High Court Affirms Principles of Equitable Division

The Court also examined the broader legal principles governing final decree proceedings in partition suits, reiterating that possession and practicality play a crucial role in determining allotments.

Quoting the Privy Council in Nutbehari Das v. Nanilal Das, the Court recalled:

“Land built upon by a co-sharer should be allotted to him, if it is not impossible.”

It further held that a co-sharer in possession of a specific portion should ordinarily retain that possession, citing Baldev Singh v. Darshani Devi, unless doing so prejudices other co-owners. In this case, the commissioner had followed this principle by allotting built-up and occupied portions to the respective parties.

Thus, the High Court held that there was no violation of law, equity, or procedure in the commissioner's allotments and partition plan.

“When the Court Applies Its Mind and the Report Is Backed by Evidence, No Interference Is Warranted Under Article 227”

Justice Behera concluded with a clear affirmation of the trial court's application of mind, procedural compliance, and evidentiary support. Dismissing the petition, the Court observed:

“There is no merit in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition… The impugned order dated 07.01.2019 is reasoned and based on judicial evaluation. The challenge under Article 227 is devoid of substance and must fail.”

This decision by the Orissa High Court provides an authoritative reaffirmation of the limited scope of Article 227 in interfering with well-reasoned orders in final decree proceedings. It reiterates that commissioners’ reports are subject to scrutiny, but not open to casual challenge once judicial satisfaction is recorded based on evidence. The Court’s recognition of practical realities like possession and road access within the framework of partition law adds significant clarity to similar litigations.

The ruling further reinforces that civil court commissioners are not mere surveyors but officers whose reports must withstand judicial evaluation. But once accepted through a proper legal process, the High Court’s supervisory power is not a backdoor to reopen factual findings.

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025