Ram Singh vs Zile Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant no. 1 - Ram Singh has approached this Court by way of instant Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 09.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing objections filed by defendant no. 1 against demarcation report dated 04.01.2012 (Annexure P-6) made by Local Commissioner (Field Kanungo). I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the same Local Commissioner, vide report dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure P-5), reported that demarcation could not be carried out as not even a single pucca point was available for demarcation at the spot, but the same Field Kanungo, as Local Commissioner, vide subsequent report dated 04.01.2012 (Annexure P-6), has allegedly effected demarcation. Defendants no. 1 and 2 (petitioner and respondent no. 2) have allegedly encroached upon certain areas, but no details of demarcation/measurements have been given in the impugned report (Annexure P-6), and therefore, the said report is unsustainable.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1 - plaintiff contended that the Local Commissioner, after making measurements and demarcation, as per site plan, has rightly made the impugned report (Annexure P-6).

I have carefully considered the matter.

Contention raised by counsel for respondent no. 1 - plaintiff cannot be accepted because there is no reference to any site plan in the said report, on the basis of which, demarcation was carried out. On the other hand, as per standing instructions of Financial Commissioner, for making demarcation, there have to be three pucca points, but in the instant case, there is no reference to any pucca points in the demarcation report Annexure P-6. However, as per report Annexure P-5, not even a single pucca point is available for demarcation. In the impugned report Annexure P-6, details of measurements have also not been mentioned nor it has been depicted as to how the Local Commissioner concluded that defendants no. 1 and 2 have made encroachment on Khasra No. 427/1 and defendant no. 2 has also made encroachment on Khasra No. 425/2. In these circumstances, impugned report Annexure P-6 is completely unsustainable. Impugned order of the trial court, rejecting the objections of defendant no. 1 -petitioner against the said report, therefore, suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error.

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court is set aside. Objections (Annexure P-7) filed by defendant no. 1 - petitioner against report (Annexure P-6) made by the Local Commissioner are allowed and said report (Annexure P-6) is set aside. The trial court shall appoint another Local Commissioner to make the demarcation, in accordance with law.