[110] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :12.03.2025 Jaipal …Appellant versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Dr. Parveen Hans, Advocate forthe appellant.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Notice of the application (CM-2636-C-2025) under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC as well as in the main appeal.

[2] Mr. Amandeep Joshi, learned AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

[3] Mr. Saurav Chauhan, SDE from the office of PWD (B&R), Haryana, is also present in Court.

[4] It has been admitted by the learned State Counsel that the findings recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar in Civil Appeal No.40-RBT of 2018 titled as ‘Darshana Kumari versus State of Haryana and others’ have been accepted by the Department and it has been decided not to prefer appeal as liberty has been granted to the respondents to conduct fresh demarcation qua construction raised by plaintiff after giving prior notice.

[5] Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant shall also be entitled for parity.

[6] Learned State Counsel on instructions from Mr. Saurav Chauhan, SDE, PWD (B&R), Haryana, does not object, in case, the present regular second appeal is also allowed in terms of the findings recorded in Civil Appeal No.40-RBT of 2018 titled as ‘Darshana Kumari versus State of Haryana and others’.

[7] Learned Lower Appellate Court in ‘Darshana Kumari versus State of Haryana and others’ while allowing the appeal preferred by the possessee held as under:-

“18. Let us look at demarcation report Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 as led on record by the defendants. Ex.D1 is an application dated 29.01.2015 submitted by SDE, PWD (B&R) to Tehsildar, Hansi for getting the demarcation conducted in respect of land from Umra Road to PWD(B&R) Stone and from Tosham road to minor falling in the area of Hansi. Retired Kanungo Rattan Singh was appointed as Local Commissioner by Tehsildar Hansi for conducting the said demarcation. Ex.D2 was notice given by Local Commissioner to concerned Patwari intimating the date of demarcation as 29.06.2015 and asking the Patwari to remain present at the spot along with the concerned persons, Sarpanch, Numberdar, Chowkidar of the village etc. No signatures of plaintiff exist upon the notice Ex.D2 which shows that the said notice was never served upon the plaintiff in any manner. Even in the attendance sheet Ex.D3, signatures of plaintiff do not exist which shows that she was not associated at the time of conducting the demarcation on 29.06.2015. Ex.D4 is the letter issued by the proprietor of Balaji Land Solution and Land Surveying to SDO, Hansi stating that demarcation would be conducted on 29.06.2105 and information regarding demarcation has been given to Sarpanch and Chowkidar of Prem Nagar and notice was served upon some persons. In the name of demarcation report, defendants prepared an encroachment map Ex.D5 wherein map of alleged encroachments was prepared. In the said index of map Ex.D5, the alleged encroachment made by plaintiff has been shown at serial no.71 and 71A, wherein encroachment of 239.06 square yards was shown to have been made by plaintiff upon khasra no.1297. Apart from the said map, Akshijra Ex.D6 of Hansi was also attached.

19. Financial Commissioner, Haryana has issued detailed instructions for the guidance of revenue officials appointed as Local Commissioners for conducting demarcation and same are contained in Rule 4 of Part M(i) of Chapter 1 in Volume 1 of Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules and Orders. The said rules clearly mandate that while conducting demarcation of any land or boundary in dispute, concerned official should relay it from the village map prepared at the last settlement. There is nothing in the demarcation report/ map Ex.D5 to show the compliance of the said requirement. Further more, rules provide that Local Commissioner must explain in detail