The necessity of demarcation in settling boundary disputes and the validity of reasoning adopted by the Court in passing the impugned order.

JUDGMENT

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - Instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 21.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Derabassi, to the extent an application moved by the respondents/defendants for demarcation in a suit for injunction instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff, has been allowed.

2. Counsel submits that the petitioner is a company duly registered with the Registrar of Companies and engaged in construction and developing land as Residential Group Housing Colony in and around Zirakpur. Petitioner is stated to be owner as also in exclusive possession of suit land measuring 20 bighas 15 biswas, on the basis of 4 registered sale-deeds in the Revenue Estate of Village Singhpura, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar. Petitioner company is stated to be developing a Residential Group Housing Colony in land measuring 16 bigha 10 biswas out of the suit land under the name and style of El-SPAZIA. In the remaining land measuring 3 bighas 17 biswas a commercial unit is to be developed for which CLU from the competent authority has been granted. It is submitted that the respondents/defendants have no concern with the suit land. Respondents No.2 and 3 owned land adjacent to the petitioner land and all the respondents in collusion are attempting to encroach upon the suit land belonging to the petitioner.

3. It is against such brief factual backdrop that the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (respondents herein) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff and further restraining them in any manner from encroaching upon the suit land was instituted.

4. Learned Senior counsel has argued that despite the fact that there is no dispute with regard to boundaries, ownership and possession of the suit land as per pleadings of both the parties and a demarcation report having already been relied upon by the respondents/defendants in the written statement, the impugned order appointing a Local Commissioner to get demarcation of the land of plaintiff and defendants cannot sustain. Further contended that application for demarcation moved by the respondents was misconceived as the same tantamounts to collecting evidence and which is impermissible under law.

5. Per contra learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not be maintainable against an order appointing Local Commissioner for purposes of demarcation. That apart it has been submitted that in terms of settled law any dispute with respect to boundaries of the land described in title documents by khasra numbers or property numbers can only be settled by demarcation of the land at the spot. Senior counsel prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

6. Counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings on record have been perused.

7. A Division Bench of this court in Harvinder Kaur and Another Vs. Godha Ram and another,1979 PLJ 562 had examined the following question:-

"Whether revision lies against an order passed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner."

Their Lordships had held as follows:-

"In the light of the aforesaid observation, without dilating any more on this subject, the meaning that can be given to the explanation is that an order made in the course of a suit or proceeding would be revisable only when it determines or adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. Thus, a revision would lie against an interlocutory order only if it determines or adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. However, even after the satisfaction of the aforesaid test the power of revision would be exercisable by this court subject to the limitations put under sub-Section (1) and the proviso to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure