1. Looking to the controversy involved in this case and with the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

2. This petition is directed against the order dated 21.1.2009 by the Civil Judge Class-II, Mehgaon in Civil Suit No.47-A/2007 by which petitioner's objection in respect of the Commissioner's report was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was a dispute in respect of the boundary of petitioner's land on which respondents were intending to construct a road. Petitioner moved an application that the disputed area, where the construction was proposed, belongs to the petitioner and a commission was issued to ascertain the exact location of the disputed land. The Commissioner though demarcated the land but from one point, without, ascertaining the fact that whether permanent marks-pillars were available and in case permanent marks were not available then he was under an obligation to affix three points from where he ought to have demarcated the land. Reliance is placed to a judgment of this Court in Second Appeal No. 98 of 1972 decided on 21.11.1977- Gulabsingh v. Ranchhod, reported in 1978 (II) MPWN Note 284 page 328 and submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the Commissioner be directed to redemarcate the land as per Rules of demarcation framed under section 124 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

4. Shri Khedkar, learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the order passed by the Court below and submitted that after affixing a point for measurement, the Commissioner measured the land and aforesaid commissioner report was in accordance with law.

5. To appreciate the aforesaid contentions, facts of the present case may be stated. Petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents alleging that respondents were constructing a road by encroaching the land of petitioner. In the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order 26 rule 9 CPC for local inspection to ascer1ain the location of the disputed place where the respondents were raising construction of a road. The Superintendent of Land Records, Collectorate, Bhind was appointed as a Commissioner who after local inspection submitted his report Annexure P-3 before the trial Court. This report was against the petitioner. On the aforesaid Commissioner's report, petitioner filed an objection that the Commissioner had not demarcated the land on the principles of demarcation. There were permanent marks, available around the village and the Commissioner ought to have measured the land from the permanent marks. The trial Court rejected the objection on the ground that the Commissioner measured the land after ascertaining the mark which was boundary of four survey numbers, from where the Commissioner measured the land which was correct and rejected the objections.

6. Section 124 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides construction of boundary marks of villagers and survey numbers or plot numbers. Aforesaid provision reads as under:

124. Construction of boundary marks villages and survey numbers or plot numbers -- (1) Boundaries of all villagers shall be fixed and demarcated by permanent boundary marks.

(2) The State Government may, in respect of any village, by notification, order that the boundaries of all survey numbers or plot numbers shall also be fixed and demarcated by boundary marks.

(3) Such boundary marks shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, be of such specification and shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as may be prescribed.

(4) Where the rules prescribed boundary marks of a specification different from that prevailing in any village, the new specification shall not be enforced in such village except upon application to a Tahsildar made by not less than half the number of holders of land in the village. When such application is made, the Tahsildar shall have new boundary marks constructed throughout the vill