CR No. 4870 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4870 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: May 15, 2009 Shiv Chand .. Petitioner v. Darshan Singh .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 8.9.2007, passed by the learned court below, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner to the report of the Local Commissioner, who was appointed on the request of the petitioner himself, were dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff to ascertain the exact location of the land on an application filed by the petitioner-defendant, Local Commissioner was appointed, who in his report dated 28.9.2005 located the plot bearing Khasra No. 56//11/1 and 2. The petitioner raised objections thereto, which were dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the impugned order, passed by the learned court below, shows that the objections were dismissed while recording that the property cannot be demarcated strictly and amicably in accordance with rules and regulations framed by this Court as well as the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, which is totally illegal as once the Court had come to the conclusion that the property in dispute cannot be demarcated, the objections filed by the petitioner were required to be accepted. In fact, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed a suit for injunction regarding the same property which was decreed on 5.10.2004. He further submitted that the petitioner had planted Safeda trees on the plot in question and to do complete justice between the parties, fresh demarcation can be made so that the petitioner does not suffer any prejudice on account of procedural defect in demarcation of the CR No. 4870 of 2007 [2] land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Local Commissioner was got appointed by the petitioner himself. It is only that the report was not favourable to the petitioner, he raised objections thereto, which were rightly dismissed. He further submitted that in the report submitted by Kanungo, it has been specifically mentioned that the measurement at the spot started after the parties admitted that a shop constructed at a particular place was the pucca point. Thereafter, even from two other sides from different points, the measurement was made to check the correctness thereof. It was submitted that once the measurement was made in the presence of the parties and starting from the point, which was admitted to be correct by both the parties, no fault as such can be found to the measurement so made, especially by a party on whose application the Local Commissioner was appointed. He further referred to the statement of Ram Nath Kanungo, who was appointed as Local Commissioner, where he reiterated, what was stated in his report. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It is not disputed that Local Commissioner for demarcation of the property was appointed on the request of the petitioner. Local Commissioner, namely, Ram Nath Bhatia Kanungo carried out the measurements in the presence of the parties from a common point, which was admitted to be correct by both the parties. It was a constructed shop. Starting from this admitted pucca point, the measurement was extended to southern-eastern corner of the land comprised in khasra No. 56//11/2. Its satisfaction was made by measuring towards eastern and western side as well. With measurement on the southern side, the measurements of the plot in dispute were confirmed. Accordingly, it was found that as per measurements, eucalyptus trees fall in the area of the land falling in khasra No. 56//11/1, which is in the ownership of Darshan Singh. In his statement recorded in the court, though DW1-Ram Nath Bhatia stated that no pucca pathar was traceable in village Pojewal and he was not in the knowledge of its existence even in adjoining villages. However, pucca point was fixed before start of demarcation on the satisfaction of both the parties and in fact, three pucca points in three different sides were fixed to carry out and confirm the measurements, which was in accordance with law. Once that is so, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that a fresh demarcation needs to be carried out, as no pucca pathar was found. Once the Local Commissioner had demarcated the land in question by taking the points, which were admitted to be correct by both the parties present at the spot, the measurements carried out on the CR No. 4870 of 2007 [3] basis thereof cannot be faulted with. Even in his statement, the Local Commissioner stood by his report and no defect could be pointed out which could lead to the conclusion that the measurement was not in conformity with law. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge May 15, 2009 mk