Punjab & Haryana High Court Takes Assistance Of Chat GPT To Understand How 'Differential GPS' Helps In Locating Disputed Property

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently took assistance of Artificial Intelligence application Chat GPT to understand how Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) helps in locating or demarcating a disputed property.

The matter pertains to a property dispute, wherein the size of the property was in question. The Court noted that the Local Commissioner had conducted the demarcation of the property with the help of DGPS.

Justice Deepak Gupta "with the assistance of artificial intelligence with the help of Chat GPT, put the question about the efficacy of the DGPS system in locating or demarcating a disputed property."

Perusing the response given by the AI tool, the Court concluded that, "DGPS provides centimeter level accuracy. It is crucial for determining exact property boundaries especially in the legal disputes, where the precision is critical. DGPS uses network of ground based reference stations that compare GPS satellite data to known positions. These stations calculate correction factors that are transmitted to a rover receiver at the site of the property."

The system of DGPS so as to measure or locate or demarcate a property is the modern technology and with the passage of time, the old technology of demarcating the property with the help of finding three pucca points must give way to the modern technology, which helps to measure and demarcate the property with precision, added the judge.

The Court found that the Local Commissioner has found the exact area of the disputed property to be 483.10 square yard, which is just at a little variance from earlier reports.

These observations were made while hearing a revision plea, wherein order declining application to examine the local commissioner was dismissed.

After examining the submissions, the Court found that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

The Court opined that the Executing Court has not committed any error in exercising the discretion vested in it, by declining the request of the petitioner to examine the Commissioner or the Junior Engineer, who had accompanied him at that time.

It is pertinent to note that, in a first, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a bail plea, had sought the response of ChatGPT to get a broader outlook of the bail jurisprudence across the world.

To assess the worldwide view on bail when the assault is laced with cruelty, Justice Anoop Chitkara used the AI tool and put the question, "What is the jurisprudence on bail when the assailants assaulted with cruelty?"

Title: Kuldeep Kumar Sharma v. Randeep Rana

Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate with Mr. Vrishank Suri, Advocate for the respondent.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 03

Click here to read/download the order