A land demarcation report is invalid and insufficient to justify a decree for possession if it fails to strictly adhere to mandatory procedural requirements, such as taking three permanent (pucca) points and ensuring the documented presence and participation of the affected parties.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendants are in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for possession although dismissed by the learned Trial Court, has been decreed in first appeal by the learned First Appellate Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit for possession claiming to be owner in possession of land measuring 51 Kanals in Khewat No. 181/356. It was alleged in the plaint that in January 2009, defendants had taken forcible possession of the said suit land of the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff had moved an application dated 11.05.2012 to the Tehsildar Bathinda for demarcation. Pursuant thereto, on 07.12.2012, demarcation was conducted by Halka Kanungo whereby it was found that defendants are in illegal possession of suit land and also in illegal possession of gair mumkin pahi in Khasra No. 278. Despite requests, defendants had refused to vacate the suit land. As such, plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit on 26.03.2013.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda had dismissed suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2015. However, the Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff has been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017 as follows:

“14. As a natural corollary to the above discussion and findings, the appeal in hand is, hereby, accepted, by way of setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree and consequent decreetal of the suit, filed by the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.”

Hence, present second appeal by the defendants.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that plaintiff had filed the present suit seeking possession on the basis of Report of Demarcation. It is submitted that the said demarcation was not conducted in accordance with the Rules as 3 pucca points were not taken. It is submitted that although learned First Appellate Court has acknowledged this defect in the Demarcation Report, yet, has allowed the Appeal of the plaintiff and decreed suit of the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court.

5. It is contended that reasoning of learned First Appellate Court is untenable and cannot be sustained. Impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises as, while passing the impugned judgement and decree, the lower Appellate Court did not consider the fact that the Revenue Officer has failed to mention in the Demarcation Report Ex. P-2 taking 3 points on different sides of the place in dispute, or even detail of measurement. The fact regarding taking of measurement etc. has been pointed out by the Ld. Civil Judge in his judgement but by ignoring all the said facts, the impugned judgement and decree has been passed.

6. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be accepted and the Judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge may kindly be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is prima facie unable to dispute the above said facts. However, Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Demarcation Report suffers from no error. It is submitted that 3 pucca points were duly taken by Kanungo while conducting demarcation. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Appeal.

8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I ha