Lakha Singh and Another vs Mukhtiar Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Aggrieved by order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the trial Court thereby allowing application Annexure P- 2 filed by respondents no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of suit property, defendants no. 2 and 5 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the said order. Plaintiffs have filed suit for possession of two kanals two marlas land comprised of khasra no. 617/5/1 alleging that the defendants have encroached upon the same. The defendants pleaded that they are in possession of only 2 marlas land of khasra no. 617 and their possession thereon is adverse to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in their application Annexure P-2 alleged that to decide the controversy regarding encroachment, it is necessary to seek demarcation of the suit property by appointment of Local Commissioner.

Defendants by filing reply Annexure P-3 opposed the application Annexure P-2 and alleged that the plaintiffs were earlier owners of khasra no. 617 and defendants are owners of khasra no. 616 and there is common wat (dol) between the two khasra numbers and plaintiffs have sold out entire area of khasra no. 617 in the shape of plots and vendees have constructed their houses there. It was also alleged that there is no tatima of khasra no. 617/5/1 in the revenue record and, therefore, demarcation cannot be made. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.07.2013 appointed Field Kanungo as Local Commissioner to demarcate khasra no. 617/5/1. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no. 2 and 5 have filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that large number of houses have been constructed in the area and therefore, demarcation is not possible. The contention cannot be accepted at this stage because if local commissioner finds that demarcation cannot be done, he may make report to this effect and the trial Court may pass appropriate order thereon. On the other hand, the question of alleged encroachment by defendants on land of the plaintiff can be properly determined by demarcation. Consequently, it is apparent that local commissioner has been rightly appointed by the trial Court for demarcation of the suit land. There is no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the suit.