124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Execution Second Appeal No. 42 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Ram Lal .......... Appellant Versus Smt. Ganga Devi and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present Execution Second Appeal, prayer has been made for setting aside of the orders dated 07.03.2017 & 01.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal-cum-Executing Court and the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal-cum-Appellate Court, Palwal respectively, whereby the objections preferred at the instance of appellant-defendant No. 2 qua the demarcation report dated 15.09.2016 filed by Field Kanungo under the orders passed by the learned Executing Court, stands declined. [2] Briefly stating, contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being plaintiffs filed a suit for possession-cum-permanent injunction against the appellant herein being defendant No. 2, which was decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 03.07.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal. Aggrieved thereof, first appeal came to be DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document E.S.A No. 42 of 2017 (O&M) [2] filed at the instance of defendants, wherein a settlement was arrived at between the parties and the appeal was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal. Based on the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2015 passed by the learned trial Court, respondent Nos. 1 to 3-plaintiffs preferred execution application, wherein Naib Tehsildar was appointed as Local Commissioner so as to demarcate the subject property for the purpose of handing over of possession. The Tehsildar, Hodal-cum-Local Commissioner submitted the report on 15.03.2016 while stating that three pucca points were not traceable as such demarcation report could not be carried out. Faced with this, the learned Executing Court ordered for appointment of another Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner with a direction of the demarcation in the suit property with the use of Total Station Machine. In pursuance thereof, Field Kanungo, while conducting demarcation, submitted his report on 15.09.2016, whereby the appellant-defendant No. 2 was found in unauthorized occupation of land measuring 100 square yards forming part of the suit property. Aggrieved of the said demarcation report dated 15.09.2016, the objections came to be filed before the learned Executing Court at the instance of appellant-defendant No. 2, which were rejected by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 07.03.2017. Aggrieved thereof, a miscellaneous appeal bearing CA/501/2017 came to be preferred at the instance of appellant-objector, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence the present Execution Second Appeal. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document E.S.A No. 42 of 2017 (O&M) [3] [3] Having heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the paper-book/record, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant-objector. [4] The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the mode of demarcation through the Total Station Machine based on satellite imagery was not approved or permissible under the High Court Rules and Orders as on the day when the demarcation was carried out and thus, a fresh demarcation was required to be conduced. In the humble opinion of this Court, no merit can be found in the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the appellant. The demarcation through the electronic portal station machine by way of satellite machine process has been approved and incorporated by way of Rule 4 (2) in Volume-I, Chapter-1, Part-M of the Rules and Orders of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules, vide subsequent notification dated 31.05.2024, which reads as under:- “ 4 (2): Delimitation or Demarcation using Electronic Total Station Machine etc.:- The delimitation of boundary and demarcation can also be carried out with the help of “Electronic Total Station (ETS) Machine” and by using Dual Frequency Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver in post processing mode or by “Real Time Kinematic (RTK)” method using Continuously Operating Reference System (CORS) Network and GNSS Rover or by any other electronic method recognized by the State Government by way of notification/instruction issued from time to time.” [5] Furthermore, a perusal of the impugned orders show that the Field Kanungo who submitted report on 15.09.2016, went on the field and with the help of Halqa Girdawar used Feeta, field book, Masawi Chakbandi, DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document E.S.A No. 42 of 2017 (O&M) [4] Aks Sizra, Killa Bandi etc. at the time of carrying out of the demarcation; thus, in the humble opinion of this Court, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. In fact, the objections preferred by the appellant appear to be a ploy merely out of a judgment and decree passed in form of respondents-plaintiffs. Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. [6] Since the main appeal has been decided / dismissed, no orders are required to be passed in the pending miscellaneous application(s) and the same shall stand disposed off. July 06, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document