The validity of the demarcation report and the requirement for compliance with the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant is as under:

''Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of trial Court and granting decree for possession of the suit land by holding demarcation reportExhibit P/3 is a valid demarcation by recording a finding which is perverse to the record ?

[For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].

2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for recovery of possession on 20.7.2004 stating interalia that he was granted patta of the land bearing Khasra No.212/10 area 0.05 acre by the competent authority by order dated 11.10.1982 and it was renumbered as Khasra No.481, in which defendant No.1 has encroached, which was got demarcated by the plaintiff on 11.7.2003

(Ex.P3) and as such, he is entitled for declaration of title and possession from defendant No.1.

3. Defendant No.1 by filing written statement has denied the averments made in the plaint and made prayer for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court upon evaluation and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 11.4.2007, held that the plaintiff is titleholder of the suit land bearing Khasra No.212/10 area 0.05 acre (renumbered as Khasra NO.481), but further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove encroachment by defendant No.1 on his land as he has failed to identify his land and as such, he is not entitled for recovery of possession.

On appeal being preferred by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the CPC , the first appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal and setaside the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that demarcation report has become final as it was not challenged by defendant No.1 by way of revision petition, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession. Questioning the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the appellant/defendant, in which substantial question of law has been formulated by this Court, which has been setout in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr.Malay Jain, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in granting decree for possession of the plaintiff as the revenue inspector who has conducted demarcation (Ex.P3) was not examined and therefore, demarcation report is not proved, as such, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court deserves to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr.B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff, would support the impugned judgment and submit that demarcation report has become final and as such, decree has rightly been granted in favour of the plaintiff by the first appellate Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. The plaintiff has proved encroachment by defendant No.1 on the basis of demarcation report (Ex.P3) which states as under:

izfr]

Jheku vfr- rglhynkj jk;iqj

fo"k;%& izfrosnu izLrqr djus ckcr~A

lanHkZ%& vkidk Kkiu dzekad 141@ck- vfr rg@03 jk;iqj fnukad 13@6@03

egkns;]

fuosnu gS fd vkosnd ;ksxsUnz dqekj /khoj firk nkuhjke /khoj ds }kjk vkosnu izLrqr dj xzke dqdjk igu 62 fLFkr Hkwfe [kljk ua 212@10 dk VqdM+k 0-05 ,dM+ Hkwfe dks 'kklu }kjk LoxhZ; firk Jh nkuhjke dks iV~Vs ij nsuk crk;k x;k gS] rFkk mDr Hkwfe dks uki tks dj dCtk o vf/kdkj fnyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA vkosnd }kjk vkosnu i= ds lkFk layXu izfrfyfi ds vuqlkj U;k;ky; Jh ds0ih0[kk.Ms uk;c rglhynkj jk;iqj ds }kjk xzke dqdjk Ik g ua 62 fLFkr Hkwfe vkcknh [k-u- 212@10 dk VqdM+k 0-05 ,dM+ 66 x