RSA No. 2654 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2654 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.7.2009 State of Punjab and others ......Appellants Versus Prem Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Ambica Luthra, AAG, Punjab, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the plaintiffs' suit for possession of the land measuring 4 biswa 18 biswanis situated in village Sihala, Tehsil Samrala, was decreed. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondents that they are owners of 18 bighas 7 biswas and 1 biswani of the land and the land measuring 8 bighas is part of the land situated in the revenue estate of village Sihala, Tehsil Samrala. On the southern side of the land, there is a minor canal along the length of seven killas of land and the local officials of the forest department threatened to cut ten Shisham trees, which have been planted by the ancestors of the plaintiffs on the aforesaid land. It is, thus, claimed that the land measuring 4 biswas and 18 biswanis, has been encroached upon by the Forest Department. Halqa Kanungo along with Patwari carried out the demarcation RSA No. 2654 of 2009 (2) on 8.6.2000 and it was found that the land measuring 4 biswas and 18 biswanis was encroached upon by the defendants. On the basis of the said demarcation report, both the Courts have decreed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the demarcation was carried out by the Local Commissioner without any notice to the appellants and, therefore, such demarcation cannot be made basis for decreeing the suit. However, the said argument is not tenable for the reason that the demarcation was carried by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. Though defendants filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner, but the defendants have not examined the Local Commissioner to test the veracity of the correctness of the report. A Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Dewan Cold Storage and General Mills v. Naveen Chander 1989(1) PLR 677, has held that the report of the Local Commissioner is an evidence in a suit and that it is for the party, who disputes such report, to cross-examine the Local Commissioner. The defendants have failed to cross-examine the Local Commissioner. The report of the Local Commissioner, being an evidence in a suit, has been rightly made basis to decree the suit of the plaintiffs. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 17-07-2009 ds