Civil Revision No.1833 of 2010(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.1833 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : February 07, 2011 Jai Chand ... Petitioner VERSUS Jai Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Silak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The order dated 8.3.2010 has been assailed by way of this petition, vide which the objection petition, preferred by the petitioner – objector (herein referred as `the petitioner') was dismissed. The factual background of the case is that earlier a suit for possession titled as `Jai Singh etc. vs. Jumla Malkan' under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was decreed in the year 1992, wherein, the respondents were allotted plot No.639. Other persons were allotted plot Nos.635 to 638. However, some area of the land comprised of Khasra No.805 remained un-divided. Then, again, another suit for partition relating to remaining part of Khasra No.805 titled as “Chhoti etc. Civil Revision No.1833 of 2010(O&M) [ 2 ] vs. Virender Singh” was filed, which was decreed on 18.8.2005. In the said suit, the Khasra No.805 was divided into plot No.805A to 805-E and the petitioner was allotted plot No.805-C. In the execution of the decree of the year 1992, the respondents filed the execution for taking possession, wherein, the petitioner filed the objection petition claiming that no possession of the area in their possession could be delivered to the decree-holders. In order to find out the area with regard to which the possession was to be delivered, the court appointed the Local Commission, whereupon, Shri Ishwar Singh Sadar Kanungo visited the spot, demarcated the area and observed in his report dated 12.4.2007 as under:- “... In this way on the area measuring 67' towards eastern, 67' towards west, 10' towards south and 10' towards north – total area 67x10 = 74 sq.yard of plot No.639, Jai Chand son of Yad Ram has built his dwelling house and the equal area of the plot of Jai Chand son of Yad Ram comes in the area of the street which is shown in the attached site plan.” In nutshell, the result of the Local Commission is that Jai Chand had encroached upon 74 sq.yards area out of the plot No.639 owned by respondent No.1. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner had filed the objection petition, upon which the court vide order dated 16.5.2009 again appointed the Halqa Kanungo as Local Commissioner to visit the spot and demarcate the area of encroachment, whereupon the Local Commissioner vide report Civil Revision No.1833 of 2010(O&M) [ 3 ] dated 15.1.2010 after demarcating the land observed the extent of encroachment made over the plot of the respondent by different persons. He observed that the area measuring 38 feet is on the western side of the plot in dispute and as such, the same is in plot No.805-C which plot has already been given to its owner. The report also indicates some encroachment made by other owners, however, we are concerned with the encroachment made by the objector. On the perusal of the site plan, it is very much clear that as per decree of the year 1992, the plots No.635 to 639 were carved out and area of plot No.805, which was left at that time was divided later on. Therefore, first of all, the possession of area covered by the decree of the year 1992 is to be delivered and the remaining is to be given to the other persons, who are beneficiaries of the subsequent decree. In view of the above, no grounds to interfere. Dismissed. February 07, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE