Civil Revision No.1254 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1254 of 2009 Date of Order: 03.07.2009 Sukhchain Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Santokh Kaur and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. A.K.Khungar, Advocate for the petitioners RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioners challenge orders dated 30.08.2008 and 10.01.2009, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur, appointing a local commissioner to demarcate the land. Respondent no.1 decree-holder filed a suit for declaration that she is the owner in possession of land measuring 2 kanals and 3 marlas situated in Khasra No.641. In addition, respondent no.1 prayed for grant of an injunction to restrain the petitioners from interfering in her possession. The suit was decreed on 06.01.2001. Alleging that the petitioners had dispossessed her, respondent no.1 filed an application for execution and an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for initiating appropriate action against the petitioners. The petitioners put in appearance and empathetically denied that they were in possession of the property owned by respondent no.1. In order to ascertain the correctness of the respective stands, the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur appointed the Sadar Kanungo as a local commissioner to demarcate Khasra No.641. Civil Revision No.1254 of 2009 -2- The sadar kanungo submitted a report that he could not carry out his commission as he could not find any pucca point for demarcation of the property. Faced with this situation, respondent no.1 prayed that the Tehsildar be directed to demarcate the property so as to determine whether the petitioners have encroached upon her property. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court had no jurisdiction to embark upon an enquiry to demarcate the land. It was for respondent no.1, to identify her land and establish that the petitioners had encroached thereon. It is further submitted that as the petitioners have already made a statement that they are not in possession of the land owned by respondent no.1, the order appointing a local commissioner is inherently illegal and should, therefore, be set aside. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. I find no reason whether in fact or in law to interfere with the impugned orders. Admittedly, respondent no.1 is owner in possession of land measuring 2 kanals and 3 marlas situated in Khasra No.641 as held in judgment and decree dated 06.01.2001, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur. The dispute as to whether the petitioners have encroached upon her land or not can only be adjudicated by demarcating the land. It is admitted that the area of Khasra No.641 is heavily constructed upon. The necessity, therefore, to identify the exact land by appointing a local commissioner is imperative and was, therefore, rightly ordered by the court below. No merit, dismissed. July 03, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE