Judgment : This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 30/01/2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge – III, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 68 of 1988. 2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal, in brief, are as follows: Land was acquired from survey no. 435/1 of Village Cuncolim, for construction of Police Station and staff quarters, for which compensation of Rs. 1,47,997/- was awarded. Since the ownership of the said acquired land was in dispute, the learned Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No. 68 of 1988. 3. There were three sets of claimants, before the learned Reference Court. The first was of parties no. 1, 2 and 3 (respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 of the appeal); the second was of party no. 6(appellant) and the third was of party no. 7(respondent no. 6 of the appeal). The party no. 4 did not file any claim before the Reference Court and also did not contest the proceedings. The party no. 5, though filed written statement, however, did not contest the proceedings. 4. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case. 5. Original party no. 3 (Joaquim vicente Coutinho), in his written statement, alleged that the acquired land was part and parcel of the property known as “Ecxirem” situated at Cuncolim, which originally belonged to his deceased grandfather by name Vicente Coutinho. The party no. 3 further stated that on the death of said Vicente Coutinho the property devolved on his son, Domingos Coutinho, the father of party no. 3, to the extent of right to 1/3rd. According to party no. 3, he is therefore owner of said right to 1/3rd of the said entire property which remains undivided. He claimed to be in possession of the said land for the last over 40 years. He relied upon the Form no. III of Survey No. 435/1, Survey Plan and Land Registration Certificate and claimed 1/3rd share of the compensation. He specifically pleaded that parties no. 5, 6 and 7 have no right to the acquired land. 6. The legal representatives of the deceased party no. 2(Joaquim S. Fernandes) namely parties no. He relied upon the Form no. III of Survey No. 435/1, Survey Plan and Land Registration Certificate and claimed 1/3rd share of the compensation. He specifically pleaded that parties no. 5, 6 and 7 have no right to the acquired land. 6. The legal representatives of the deceased party no. 2(Joaquim S. Fernandes) namely parties no. 2(a) and 2(b) filed their written statement at Exhibit 16 and legal representatives at serial no. 2(c) and 2(d) filed their written statement at Exhibit 46. They all claimed that the acquired land is part of the property “Ecxirem” situated in the village of Cuncolim and that 1/3rd share in the said property belongs to the party no.1; another 1/3rd Share belongs to the party no. 2 and the remaining 1/3rd belongs to party no. 3. They therefore prayed that the compensation be shared equally amongst the said three parties. 7. The party no. 5, in its written statement, alleged that the acquired land is a part of a larger property known as “Chicolearum” or “Chicanaarao” or “Carojem” and that the same belongs to the party no. 5 and is surveyed in the name of Court Receiver. The party no.5 therefore claimed entire compensation in respect of the acquired land. 8. The party no.6, in his written statement, alleged that the acquired land from survey no. 435 is part of the property known as “Chicolearum” or “Chicanaarao” or “Carojem” situated at Cuncolim and bearing land registration no. 6202, that being 2/3rd of the entire property. He claimed that this property is bounded on the east by the top of the hill, on the west by Khan and Shri Shanta Durga Cuncolcarina, Leao Coutinho and others, on the north by Pedro Sant Ann Coutinho, Bicu Rama Naik, Camilo Moraes and others and on the south Ecxiro of the heirs of Luis Coutinho and Vagana dos Audis. He stated that this property belongs to his ancestors namely Rama Pocu Naik and others and he is in possession of the same along with other co-owners, wherein they extract stones and cultivate paddy and cereals. The party no. 6 further stated that a small portion of the land has been sold to Mr. Pedro Fernandes and that two pieces of land were used for paddy cultivation. The party no. 6 further stated that a small portion of the land has been sold to Mr. Pedro Fernandes and that two pieces of land were used for paddy cultivation. He also alleged that being Karta of the family, he had erected a garage in the year 1971, inside the northern boundary line of the property and that there is also one house of Bicaji Govind Chari whereas a small piece of land is also used for Hindu rituals and there are some tombs visible at the site. The party no. 6 stated that the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 are not the owners of the property and that they are owners of survey no. 436. According to him, he purchased this property from the ancestors of parties no.1 and 2. He therefore claimed that the entire compensation be paid to him. 9. The party no. 7, in his written statement, stated that his late father and thereafter he has been the owner in possession of the property bearing survey no. 435/1 and he is also a tenant of the adjoining plot bearing survey no. 435/2. He stated that this property is known as “Carojem” and is bounded on the east by the property of heirs of Paulo Coutinho and others and of Pedro Fernandes, on the west by the property of Xec Abdul Razac, on the north by the property of Condado of Cuncolim and on the south by the Margao-Canacona road. He stated that the said survey holding no. 435/1 is enjoyed by them as owners thereof and he had a tea stall on the same and that a portion of the said property was acquired for the construction of Police station. He further stated that he was cultivating paddy and other crops and there were coconut trees and cashew trees in this property which were enjoyed by them. He stated that a portion comprising of 6000 square metres was acquired from survey no. 435/1 and 2019 square metres was acquired from survey no. 435/2 for the construction of police station. He stated that the property is surveyed in the name of late Nilu Vithal Mesta, grandfather of Shripad Chari. He further stated that the property bearing survey no. 435/2 was owned by Shantadurga Devasthan of Fatorpa, of which the father of the party no. 435/2 for the construction of police station. He stated that the property is surveyed in the name of late Nilu Vithal Mesta, grandfather of Shripad Chari. He further stated that the property bearing survey no. 435/2 was owned by Shantadurga Devasthan of Fatorpa, of which the father of the party no. 7 was the tenant and it had a total area of 12000 square metres. He stated that there is a tamarind tree in this property, fruits of which are enjoyed by him. He therefore claimed that none of the other parties have any right to the acquired land from survey nos. 435/1 and 435/2 and that entire compensation is liable to be paid to him. 10. Accordingly, issues were framed by the learned Reference Court. The party No. 3(a) i.e. Mrs. Antonieta Coutinho examined herself as P3-W1. Parties No. 3(a) and 3(b) also examined a labourer by name Mariana Fernandes as P3-W2. The party no. 6 i.e. Rama Xanu Dessai examined himself as P6-W1 and three more witnesses namely Laxman Krishna Naik as P6-W2, Guno B. Dessai as P6-W3 and Plotino Fernandes as P6-W4. The party no.7(a) examined himself as P7-W1. 11. Upon assessment of the entire evidence on record the learned Reference Court found that there is no dispute that Domingos Coutinho in whose name 1/3rd of the property “Ecxirem” bearing land inscription no. 10411 was inscribed, was the father of deceased party no. 3. He further held that since the names of parties no. 1, 2 and 3 are appearing in survey records of survey no. 435, they are to be presumed to be in possession of the same, by virtue of Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968. He also held that the presumption would arise that the possession of this land was not with party no. 6. The learned Reference Court further found that party no. 6 admits the existence of property “Ecxirem” towards South of the property “Carojem” and that the statement of P3-W1 to the effect that there is a hill in their property, has not been denied by the parties no. 6 and 7. According to the Reference Court, the above supports the stand of party no. 3 that survey no. 435/1 and survey no. 435/2 forms part of their property since admittedly the property under Survey no. 435/1 is bounded on the east by the hill. 6 and 7. According to the Reference Court, the above supports the stand of party no. 3 that survey no. 435/1 and survey no. 435/2 forms part of their property since admittedly the property under Survey no. 435/1 is bounded on the east by the hill. The learned Reference Court observed that the party no. 6 has claimed the property as being part of his ancestral property known as “Carojem” and has produced deed of partition, sale, acquittance and consent dated 22/04/1907, as Exhibit 68. The Reference Court held that the party no. 6 has not established his relationship with Rama Poku Naik whose name is shown in the Sale Deed dated 22/04/1907. The Reference Court therefore held that party no. 6 has not proved that he has derived title to this property under land registration no. 6202. He further held that the party no. 6 has pleaded that he purchased the property from the ancestors of parties no. 1 and 2 and this would indicate that the parties no. 1 and 2 were co-owners of the acquired land. The learned Reference Court found that the party no. 6 has emerged as a totally unreliable witness. The learned Reference Court further found that amongst the three claims, firstly of parties no. 1, 2 and 3, secondly of party no. 6 and thirdly of party no.7, only the title documents produced by party no. 3 suggest that acquired property was part of the property belonging to the parties no. 1, 2 and 3. He held that party no. 6 failed to prove that the acquired land was a part of the property bearing land registration no. 6202 and that party no. 7 has not produced any title document. On the balance of probabilities, the learned Reference Court held that the acquired land forms part of the property “Ecxirem” belonging to the parties no. 1, 2 and 3. In the result, the compensation along with accrued interest was ordered to be paid 1/3rd each to the parties no. 1, 2 ad 3. The party no. 6 is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award. 12. Since the parties no 4, 5 and 7(a) have not challenged the Judgment and award and have given up their claim, the dispute is restricted between the party no. 6 on one side and parties no. 1, 2 and 3 on the other side. 13. The party no. 6 is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award. 12. Since the parties no 4, 5 and 7(a) have not challenged the Judgment and award and have given up their claim, the dispute is restricted between the party no. 6 on one side and parties no. 1, 2 and 3 on the other side. 13. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of party no. 6 submitted that the Reference Court has committed a patent error in holding that the survey records in Form No. III carry a presumption of possession in favour of the parties no. 1, 2 and 3, under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code (L. R. Code, for short). He contended that said presumption applies only to promulgated survey records in Form No. I and XIV. According to the learned Counsel, the Reference Court, having been influenced by entries in the Form No. III, has put entire burden on the party no. 6 and has mainly gone to find out as to how and why the party no.6 has failed to prove his title to the acquired land. He pointed out that the name of the property named in Form No. III of survey no. 435/1 is 'Carojem' whereas the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 claim to be owners of property by name 'Ecxirem'. The grievance of the learned counsel is that the Reference Court has not considered as to whether the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 have cogently proved their title. He submitted that in the Written Statement filed by the parties no. 1, 2 and 3, they have neither described boundaries nor have stated incidents showing possession. He submitted that the party no. 6, on the contrary, has stated the name, boundaries, land registration number and as also set out possessory rights, in his written statement. According to the learned Counsel, the issue for determination should have been as to whether the acquired land forms part of the property of parties no.1, 2 and 3 or whether it forms part of the property of party no. 6. He submitted that in order to find out the answer to the above issue it was necessary that a Court Commissioner should have been appointed to identify the acquired land vis-a-vis the title documents of both the parties. 6. He submitted that in order to find out the answer to the above issue it was necessary that a Court Commissioner should have been appointed to identify the acquired land vis-a-vis the title documents of both the parties. He relied upon the case of “Tajmulhussains/o Mulla Mumtaz Hussain V/s. Satish s/o.Bhanudas Chavan” reported in 1994(3) Bom. C.R. 317. He therefore urged that the impugned Judgment and Award be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Reference Court with a direction to appoint a Court Commissioner for identification of the acquired land vis-a-vis the property described in the title documents produced by the parties. 14. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 3(a) to 3(d) submitted that admittedly the property bearing land registration no. 17765 is inscribed in the name of Domingos Coutinho and there is no dispute that said Domingos Coutinho is late father of parties no. 1, 2 and 3. He further submitted that the eastern boundary of the property is admittedly the top of hill and he showed from the land registration document that the property of the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 is bounded towards east by top of the hill. He then pointed out that P3-W1 has specifically stated that there is hill in their property and this fact is not denied by the party no. 6. He contended that the party no. 6 has failed to prove his relationship with Rama Poku Naik and therefore the party no. 6 cannot prove anything through the deed of partition, sale, acquittance and consent, produced by him as Exhibit 68. He therefore submitted that the finding of the learned Reference Court which is based on preponderance of probabilities cannot be faulted. 15. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 2(a) and 2(b) adopted the arguments of Mr. S. S. Kakodkar. He further submitted that the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 have their title and party no. 6 also has his title and the question is in whose property lies the acquired land in terms of the title document of each party. He then took me minutely through the evidence on record and the documents and submitted that the title documents of the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 sufficiently prove that the property described therein corresponds with survey no. He then took me minutely through the evidence on record and the documents and submitted that the title documents of the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 sufficiently prove that the property described therein corresponds with survey no. 435/1 and therefore no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and award. 16. I have gone through the record and proceedings and have considered the submissions made by the parties. 17. There is great force in the contention of learned Counsel for the respondent no. 6 that the Reference Court has decided the reference mainly by assuming that there is presumption in favour of the parties no. 1, 2 and 3, under Section 105 of the L. R. Code, that the possession of the land is with them. The Reference Court has relied upon (i) “Shriram Narayan Dhond and another Vs. Demu Surya Gaude”, 1991(4) BCR 251 and (ii) “Damodar Loundo Vs. Bhasker Jalmi”, 1990(2) Goa L.T. 407. The learned reference Court has repeatedly relied upon this presumption. Land records are prepared under Chapter VIII of the L. R. Code. Section 105 of the L. R. Code provides that an entry in the record of rights, and a certified entry in the register of mutation shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. Section 95 of the L. R. Code, inter alia, provides that a record of rights in land shall be maintained in prescribed form. Rule 3 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue (Record of Rights and Register of Cultivators) Rules, 1969 prescribes the said form. It provides that a record of rights to be maintained in every village under Section 95 shall be in the form of a separate card in Form I for each survey number or, as the case may be, sub-division of a survey number or where the land is not surveyed, for each field. Index of lands in Form No. III is only a draft of the Index of lands, open for inspection and objections. Presumption under Section 105 of the L. R. Code applies to promulgated survey records in Form No. I & XIV. and not to the Form No. III. Besides the above, the party no. 6 has filed objections regarding the said entries in Form no. III and the Dispute Case appears to be still pending. Presumption under Section 105 of the L. R. Code applies to promulgated survey records in Form No. I & XIV. and not to the Form No. III. Besides the above, the party no. 6 has filed objections regarding the said entries in Form no. III and the Dispute Case appears to be still pending. The judgments in the cases of “Shriram Dhond”(supra) and “Damodar Loundo”(supra) pertain to promulgated survey records, in Form No. I & XIV. Thus, the foundation on which the impugned judgment and award is based is itself erroneous. The survey Index of land in Form No. III, in respect of survey no. 435/1, which is at Exhibit 59-colly, does not help the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 to prove their possession. There is no dispute that survey records cannot confer title. 18. The acquired land is from survey no. 435/1 of village Cuncolim. The parties no. 1, 2 and 3 claim that the acquired land is part and parcel of their property bearing land registration description no. 17765 and inscription no. 10411. The land registration description and inscription certificate is at Exhibit 61-colly. The party no. 6 claims that the acquired land is part and parcel of his property bearing land registration no. 6202, as described in the deed of partition, sale, acquittance and consent dated 22/4/1907 which, along with its translation, is at Exhibit 68-colly. P6-W1(party no. 6) has stated in his affidavit-in-evidence that he is one of the co-owners of the property 'Chicolearum' or 'Chiconarum' or 'Carojem' originally belonging to late Rama Naik alias Rama P. Dessai who was his grand father and others and that they had acquired the said property by means of deed of partition, sale, acquittance and consent dated 22/4/1907 and that the said property is described in the land registration office under number 6202. P6.W1 has given the boundaries of the said property and has stated that the acquired land from survey no. 435/1 is part of this property. In his cross-examination, P6.W1 has stated that the name of his grandfather is Ram Poku Naik and that his title document shows the name as Rama Poku Naik and not Ram Prabhu Dessai. He has stated the name of his father as Shanu Naik Dessai. 435/1 is part of this property. In his cross-examination, P6.W1 has stated that the name of his grandfather is Ram Poku Naik and that his title document shows the name as Rama Poku Naik and not Ram Prabhu Dessai. He has stated the name of his father as Shanu Naik Dessai. No doubt, P6.W1 has not produced any documents to prove that he is the grandson of said Rama P. Naik alias Rama P. Dessai or to prove that Rama Poku Naik and Rama Prabhu Dessai is one and the same person. A suggestion has been put to P6.W1 that Rama Poku Dessai is not his ancestor. However, the fact remains that P6.W1 was in possession of the said deed of partition, sale, acquittance and consent, which he produced as his title document. In Special Civil Suit No. 111/80/A, filed by original party no. 3 and his wife against party no. 6 and another, the original party no. 3 and his wife had claimed to be co-owners of the property bearing land registration no. 17765 and had stated that the party no. 6 had constructed a shed in their said property whereas the party no. 6 had claimed to be the owner of the property bearing land registration no. 6202, by virtue of the same deed of partition, sale, acquittance and consent and that the said shed lies in his said property. It is not the case of parties no. 1, 2 and 3 that in the said Special Suit it was denied that the party no. 6 was grandson of Rama Poku Naik, etc. The Judgment and decree dated 24/11/1999, passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, in that Special Suit reveals that the shed was proved to have been constructed by the party no. 6. However, none of the parties could prove that the same lies in their/his property, as claimed. The dispute, in the present case is between parties no. 1, 2 and 3 on one side and party no. 6 on the other side and they claim title on the basis of the same documents on which they had relied upon in the said Special Civil Suit No. 111/80/A. There are three witnesses namely Laxman Krishna Naik(P6-W2), Guno Babuso Dessai(P6.W3) and Plotino Fernandes(P6.W4), who have corroborated the claim of the party no. 6. I do not find any difficulty in holding that the party no. 6. I do not find any difficulty in holding that the party no. 6 is a co-owner of the property described in the said deed of partition, sale, acquittance and consent and under land registration no. 6202 and that the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 are the co-owners of the property described under land registration no. 17765. 19. The real question for determination is whether the acquired land forms part of the property bearing land registration no. 17765, as claimed by parties no. 1, 2 and 3 or whether it forms part of the property bearing land registration no. 6202, as claimed by party no. 6. 20. The Reference Court has found that the property “Ecxirem” of the parties no 1, 2 and 3 is bounded on the east by top of the hill and that the statement of P3.W1 to the effect that there is hill in their property has not been denied by the party no. 6. However, the Reference Court has not considered the fact that the party no. 3 and his wife, in Special Suit No. 111/80/A had claimed that their property ”Ecxirem” is bounded toward east by the property of Communidade of Cuncolim. In any case, the property of the party no. 6 is also bounded on the east by top of the hill. Since as per the title document of party no. 6, the property of the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 lies on the southern side of the property of party no. 6, it is quite possible that the property of the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 is also bounded toward east by top of hill. Though, P3.W1 admits in her cross-examination that on the west of survey nos. 435/1, 435/2 and 436/1 lies the Margao-Canacona road, however, admittedly, the title document of parties no. 1, 2 and 3 does not mention western boundary of the property as road. The discussion made by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment reveals that the boundaries stated by the witnesses of the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 do not tally with those mentioned in the title document. It should also be kept in mind that the property bearing survey no. 435/1 did not have any trees but the property described in the title document of the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 consisted of coconut trees and other trees. 1, 2 and 3 do not tally with those mentioned in the title document. It should also be kept in mind that the property bearing survey no. 435/1 did not have any trees but the property described in the title document of the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 consisted of coconut trees and other trees. It was the claim of party no. 6 that there are tombs of Hindus and a burial ground of Hindus existing in the said property. Indisputably, there are such tombs and burial ground in survey no 435/1. Similarly, laterite stones have been extracted from this survey no. 435/1 and it was the case of the party no. 6 that his ancestors had permitted such extraction. The title document of party no. 6 mentions that there is pit opened for extraction of laterite stones. In their written statements, the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 had not referred to the tombs, burial ground or extraction of laterite stones. The learned Reference Court appears to have based the reasons on surmises and conjectures. The evidence on record is not sufficient either to prove that the property bearing survey no. 435/1 lies in or corresponds with the property bearing land registration no. 17765 or that it lies in or corresponds with the property bearing land registration no. 6202. The properties described in the title documents of the rival parties need to be identified vis-avis the property bearing survey no. 435/1 of Cuncolim, which work can be efficiently done only by an expert surveyor, and thereafter the oral evidence on record should be appreciated, in the light of the report and plan of the expert, tested by cross-examination. 21. Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the court; provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules. The report of commissioner can be used for the purpose of appreciating the evidence which the parties have led with reference to what the commissioner saw at loco when he inspected the land. In the present case, local investigation is essential for the purpose of resolving the matter in dispute, since the controversy is as to the identification and location of the land. 22. In the case of “Tajmulhussain”(supra), the dispute between the parties was about location of the boundary line between various sub-divisions of C.T.S. No. 16034 and various sub-divisions of C.T.S. No. 16035 of Aurangabad. Learned Single Judge of Aurangabad Bench of this Court has observed that Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the power of the Courts to appoint Commissions in various contingencies. Some commissions are appointed to examine witnesses, some are appointed for local investigations, some are appointed for examining the accounts, some are appointed for making partitions, so on and so forth. It is further observed that making of such an order for appointment of the commissioner would not have prejudiced the interest of either of the parties, because it was only in that eventuality, that it was possible for the Court to arrive at a proper conclusion. If at all any party was aggrieved by the report given by the Commissioner so appointed by the Court, an opportunity would have become available to that party to cross-examine the Commissioner and to point out how his conclusions were not correct. The party, who was not aggrieved could also prove how his conclusions were correct. 23. In the case of “VencuGopal Tari and others v. Nilconta S. Xete and others”,( A.I.R. 1975 Goa, Daman and Diu, 32), the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has held that where there is a dispute as regards the identity of the suit property allegedly bearing two different registration numbers, the trial Court should appoint a Commissioner, preferably a trained surveyor to examine whether the property bearing two different numbers is in fact the same. It has been held that such an expert opinion in a case of this nature would be of great assistance for proper disposal of the controversy. 24. In the present case, there is on record the survey plan of survey no. 435/1 of Village Cuncolim, at Exhibit 60 or at Exhibit 69. It has been held that such an expert opinion in a case of this nature would be of great assistance for proper disposal of the controversy. 24. In the present case, there is on record the survey plan of survey no. 435/1 of Village Cuncolim, at Exhibit 60 or at Exhibit 69. There is on record the certificate of land registration description and inscription, of the property bearing land registration no. 17765 produced by parties no.1, 2 and 3, as Exhibit 61-colly. Then, there is also on record the deed of partition, sale, acquittance and consent dated 22/04/1907 which pertains to the property bearing land registration no. 6202, produced by the party no.6, as Exhibit 68-colly. The oral evidence adduced by the parties is not sufficient for identification of the property vis-a-vis the acquired land. The compensation is bound to be paid either to the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 or to the party no. 6. Therefore, it would be advisable to appoint a Commissioner, preferably a trained Surveyor to examine whether the property bearing survey no. 435/1 as shown in the survey plan corresponds with the property bearing land Registration no. 17765 or to the property bearing land registration no. 6202. Such an expert opinion in case of this nature would certainly be of great assistance for proper disposal of the controversy. 25. The impugned judgment and award is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside insofar as it pertains to the parties no. 1, 2 3 and 6. Matter requires to be remanded back for the purpose of appointment of a Commissioner, for the purpose, as observed above. 26. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. a) The impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside insofar as parties no. 1, 2, 3 and 6, are concerned. b) The case stands remanded to the Reference Court with a direction to appoint a Commissioner, preferably a trained surveyor, in order to identify the property bearing survey no. 435/1, in which the acquired land lies, vis-a-vis the property bearing land registration no. 17765 and land registration no. 6202 and to report whether it is the part of the property claimed by the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 or whether it is part of the property claimed by party no. 6. 435/1, in which the acquired land lies, vis-a-vis the property bearing land registration no. 17765 and land registration no. 6202 and to report whether it is the part of the property claimed by the parties no. 1, 2 and 3 or whether it is part of the property claimed by party no. 6. c) The Reference Court shall then allow the parties to take copies of the report and plan of the Commissioner and to file their respective say on the same. The contention of the parties in respect of Commissioner's report and plan shall be decided by the Reference Court after taking the evidence into account at the time of final hearing of the matter. d) Both parties shall share the fees of the Commissioner as fixed by the Reference Court. (e) The parties no. 1, 2 , 3 and 6 shall appear before the Reference Court on 04/03/2013 at 10.00 a.m. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.