IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 Swaran Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate Mr. D.K.Singhal, Advocate and Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

****

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner impugns the concurrently drawn verdicts of eviction, which are respectively embodied in Annexure P-4, and, Annexure P-6.

2. The Gram Panchayat, Village Moosapur, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Sarpanch, instituted a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 against the petitioners herein seeking thereins their eviction from the petition land. Through a decision made thereons on 04.09.1998 (Annexure P-4), the Collector concerned, drew a verdict of eviction, whereby he thus ordered for the eviction of the respondent(s)

therein, from the petition land(s).

3. The petitioners, becoming aggrieved from Annexure P-4, thus preferred a statutory appeal thereagainst, before the learned statutory appellate authority below, and, on the said statutory appeal bearing No.19 of 1998, the appellate authority concerned rather concurred with the decision, as became earlier rendered by the Collector concerned (Annexure P-4).

4. Consequently, the judgment debtors-the petitioners herein becoming aggrieved from the above concurrently made verdicts of eviction against them, and, are led to constitute thereagainst the instant writ petition before this Court.

5. The gravamen of the entire lis is grooved in the tenability or otherwise of the demarcation report, thus revealing that encroachment(s) was made upon the gair mumkin rasta, at the instance of the present petitioners.

6. The learned State counsel submits, that the said demarcation report never became tendered into evidence by its author, nor became proven, in accordance with law. He also further appreciably, and, fairly submits that, thus no probative sanctity was to be assigned to the said purported demarcation report, as it remained unproven by its author, through his stepping into the witness box.

7. The imperative norm for validating any demarcation report, is but that, it was required to be evidently proven, that at the site concerned, the revenue officer concerned had carried the apposite Masavi, and, had therefrom, ascertained the fixed points, and, subsequently had relayed them onto the ground. Moreover, the said demarcation report was required to be tendered into evidence, by the revenue officer concerned, who drew it, and thereons, an exhibition mark was required to be also made. The reason for the above being done, arose from therebys able proof rather would become garnered by the demarcation report, whereas only upon, its being per se placed on record, rather would not mobilize any conclusion, that merely thereby it has some evidentiary sanctity. The said purported demarcation report but evidently garners no evidentiary sanctity, as its author also failed to tender the same into evidence.

8. However, an incisive scrutiny of the record discloses, that irrespective of the fact, that even if the relied upon purported demarcation report, was purportedly prepared in terms of the relevant norm (supra), but as a matter of fact, thus for it being read as valid evidence against the encroacher(s) concerned, rather it became not tendered into evidence by the author of the said demarcation report. Since the tendering of the purported demarcation report, by its author, was but imperative, as thereupon alone the ablest proof qua its valid drawings, would thus spur. Consequently, when the said purported demarcation report was not tendered into evidence by its author, therefore its purportedly becoming merely place