S. A. O. No. 23 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : S. A. O. No. 23 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 06, 2011 Niranjan Singh .... Appellant Vs. The District Forest Officer and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal from order, preferred by plaintiff Niranjan Singh. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit for possession of 17 biswas land alleging that plaintiff is owner thereof and the defendants have encroached upon the same. The defendants disputed ownership of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that Irrigation Department (represented by defendant no.2) transferred it to Forest Department (represented by defendant no.1). Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda, S. A. O. No. 23 of 2011 2 vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.2007, decreed the plaintiff' suit. However, in first appeal preferred by defendant no.1, learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 03.03.2011, while setting aside the judgment of the trial court, has remanded the suit to the trial court observing that the trial court would be required to appoint Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land and the suit shall be decided afresh after taking further evidence of all concerned, if need be. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that demarcation was conducted in the year 1991 on the application of defendant no.1 and as per said demarcation report (Ex.P-6), coupled with Naksha Tawafat (Ex.P-7), defendants were found to be in possession of 17 biswas suit land belonging to the plaintiff, and therefore, suit of the plaintiff was rightly decreed. The contention cannot be accepted. It has been rightly observed by the lower appellate court that demarcation vide aforesaid demarcation report was not conducted properly because three pacca points were not fixed and measurements from three pacca points were not conducted. According to the High Court Rules and Orders as well as according to standing directions of Financial Commissioner, it is essential S. A. O. No. 23 of 2011 3 to start measurement from three pucca points so as to make proper demarcation. In the instant case, vide demarcation report (Ex.P-6), it was not so done. Consequently, the said demarcation cannot be said to be proper demarcation and has been rightly discarded by the lower appellate court. Fresh demarcation to be conducted in accordance with High Court Rules and Order and relevant rules including Punjab Land Revenue Act has been rightly ordered by the lower appellate court so as to decide the controversy properly. Only by way of proper demarcation, it can be found out whether defendants have encroached upon any portion of the plantiff's land or not. In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. The instant appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. The trial court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. May 06, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE