The Boundary Dispute in a Preliminary Verification
A preliminary examination team is verifying a complaint about encroachment on a public canal bank. The complaint names a local trader who has built a 3-metre extension onto his shop. The team's map shows the canal boundary line, but the field boundary pillar is missing. The trader produces a mutation document from 12 years ago showing his plot extending to a point that, on the ground, overlaps the canal bank by about 1.5 metres. Two neighbours give conflicting statements: one says the trader has been there for 15 years, the other says the extension is two years old. The team has one day on site and no survey instrument beyond a measuring tape. The team leader must decide whether to record an encroachment, refer the matter for a proper survey, or close the complaint as civil in nature.
1. Evaluate the strength of the evidence and decide the appropriate preliminary finding.
Read the worked answer
The evidence is contradictory and incomplete. The map shows a boundary line but the pillar is missing, so the map cannot be tied to the ground with confidence. The mutation document is 12 years old and, on its face, places the plot partly over the canal bank, which may indicate either an error in the mutation or a genuine overlap that was never resolved. The neighbours disagree on duration, and duration matters because long possession may raise a limitation or adverse-possession question that a preliminary team cannot decide.
A tape measure cannot resolve a 1.5 metre overlap against a missing pillar. Recording an encroachment on this evidence would prejudge a disputed boundary. Closing the complaint as civil would ignore a public-interest issue over canal land.
The defensible preliminary finding is that the matter cannot be determined on the available evidence and should be referred for a proper survey with a total station, reconstruction of the boundary pillar from control points, and verification of the mutation record against the cadastral map. The team should record the conflicting statements, photograph the site, and note the missing pillar.
2. Explain how the team should handle the trader's mutation document and the neighbours' statements.
Read the worked answer
The mutation document should be accepted as evidence but not as conclusive proof. It should be checked against the cadastral record to see whether the mutation was properly sanctioned and whether it was ever reflected in the map. A mutation that conflicts with the canal alignment may be void or may require correction, but that is a decision for the competent revenue authority, not the preliminary team.
The neighbours' statements should be recorded verbatim with names, dates, and signatures, and treated as unverified. The 15-year claim, if true, may support a limitation argument, but limitation is a legal question and the team should not adjudicate it. The two-year claim, if true, would suggest recent construction, which is relevant to whether any permission was obtained.
The team's job is to preserve evidence and refer, not to decide title. A strong answer says the team should prepare a factual report distinguishing what was observed, what was produced as documents, and what remains disputed, and should recommend the survey and a legal review before any enforcement action.