RSA-2402-1985 IN THE HIGH Municipal Committee Radha Krishan (since deceased) through LRs. CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondent. MANDEEP PANNU, 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant Municipal Committee passed by the Court by the learned Sub Judge First Class, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, dismissing the appeal f Brief Facts 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for Municipal Committee forcibly and from lea the plaintiff, Radha Krishan, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the site in dispute was previously owned by 1985 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA Reserved on: Date of Decision : Municipal Committee, Budhlada, District Mansa VERSUS Radha Krishan (since deceased) through LRs. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant Municipal Committee, Budhlada, assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees Courts below, namely, judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, dismissing the appeal f Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Committee, Budhlada, from entering into the site in dispute illegally and forcibly and from leasing out the shops after their the plaintiff, Radha Krishan, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the site in dispute was previously owned by Partapa, Baru, Nikka Singh, Leelu Singh sons of Bhagwana -1- OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2402-1985 (O&M) Reserved on:-22.09.2025 Date of Decision : 23.09.2025 District Mansa ....Appellant ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondent. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant , assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant. permanent injunction restraining the , from entering into the site in dispute illegally and sing out the shops after their construction therein. The case of the plaintiff, Radha Krishan, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the site in dispute was , Baru, Nikka Singh, Leelu Singh sons of Bhagwana - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant– , assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by the learned Additional iled by the present appellant. permanent injunction restraining the , from entering into the site in dispute illegally and construction therein. The case of the plaintiff, Radha Krishan, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the site in dispute was , Baru, Nikka Singh, Leelu Singh sons of Bhagwana TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 Singh, and Chuhar Singh and Hazura Singh sons of Phuman S Budhlada. The plaintiff purchased the site in dispute from them vide registered sale deed dated 30.07 was alleged that the defendant in dispute, yet it was interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and attempting to raise construction of shops thereon for the purpose of leasing them out. The plaintiff pleaded that if such interference succeeds, he would suffer irreparable loss. Despite request to desist, the defendant persisted, which compelled him to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. 3. The defendant by filing written statement. It was alleged that the plaintiff has no locus standi and the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under law. On merits, the stand was taken that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the site in dispute. The defendant asserted that the land belongs to the and it was raising construction of shops on its own land, whereas the plaintiff under the garb of injunction was harassing the defendant and causing loss. 4. Replication was filed by denying the allegations of the written statement. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial following issues: 1. 2. OPP 3. 1985 (O&M) Singh, and Chuhar Singh and Hazura Singh sons of Phuman S . The plaintiff purchased the site in dispute from them vide registered sale 07.1969 and thereby became owner and possessor of the same. It was alleged that the defendant–Municipal Committee in dispute, yet it was interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and attempting to raise construction of shops thereon for the purpose of leasing them out. The plaintiff pleaded that if such interference succeeds, he would suffer irreparable espite request to desist, the defendant persisted, which compelled him to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his The defendant–Municipal Committee written statement. It was alleged that the plaintiff has no locus standi and the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under law. On merits, the stand was taken that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the site in The defendant asserted that the land belongs to the and it was raising construction of shops on its own land, whereas the plaintiff under the garb of injunction was harassing the defendant and causing loss. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating his averments and denying the allegations of the written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial following issues: Whether the plaintiff is owner of the disputed property? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to OPP Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD -2- Singh, and Chuhar Singh and Hazura Singh sons of Phuman Singh, residents of . The plaintiff purchased the site in dispute from them vide registered sale .1969 and thereby became owner and possessor of the same. It Municipal Committee has no concern with the in dispute, yet it was interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and attempting to raise construction of shops thereon for the purpose of leasing them out. The plaintiff pleaded that if such interference succeeds, he would suffer irreparable espite request to desist, the defendant persisted, which compelled him to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his Municipal Committee appeared and contested the suit written statement. It was alleged that the plaintiff has no locus standi and the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under law. On merits, the stand was taken that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the site in The defendant asserted that the land belongs to the Municipal Committee and it was raising construction of shops on its own land, whereas the plaintiff under the garb of injunction was harassing the defendant and causing loss. the plaintiff reiterating his averments and denying the allegations of the written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the Whether the plaintiff is owner of the disputed property? OPP ther the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD - ingh, residents of . The plaintiff purchased the site in dispute from them vide registered sale .1969 and thereby became owner and possessor of the same. It has no concern with the site in dispute, yet it was interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and attempting to raise construction of shops thereon for the purpose of leasing them out. The plaintiff pleaded that if such interference succeeds, he would suffer irreparable espite request to desist, the defendant persisted, which compelled him to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his appeared and contested the suit written statement. It was alleged that the plaintiff has no locus standi and the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under law. On merits, the stand was taken that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the site in Municipal Committee and it was raising construction of shops on its own land, whereas the plaintiff the plaintiff reiterating his averments and framed the Whether the plaintiff is owner of the disputed property? OPP injunction as prayed for? Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 4. Committee 5. 6. 6. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined PW1 Surjit Singh, PW3 Arjan Singh, PW4 evidence the registe 7. On the other hand, the defendant examined DW1 Ra Singla and DW2 Lac evidence letter dated 25.01.1982 (Ex.D1), report of Field 24.11.1981 (Ex.D2), site plan (Ex.D3), report o (Ex.D4), photo- sheet (Ex.D6), copies of Jamabandi for the year 1977 of mutations Nos. 6727 to 6730 (Ex.D9 to D12), copy of Khata (Ex.D13), copies of Khatauni Paimaish (Ex.D14 to D14/3), and copy of Naksha Haqdarwar (Ex.D15). Findings of the Trial 8. The learned trial sides, returned a finding that the plaintiff had prove of the disputed site by virtue of registered sale deed Ex.P1. The oral testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses supported his possession, and the sale deed being a registered document could not be brushed aside as forged or fabrica 9. As regards the defendant’s evidence, the learned trial DW1 Ravinder Kumar Singla could not even state the dimensions of the land allegedly belonging to the 1985 (O&M) Whether no valid notice was served upon Committee? If so, its effect? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the Relief In support of his case, the plaintiff examined PW1 Surjit Singh, PW3 Singh, PW4 Didar Singh SDO, and himself as PW2. He produced in evidence the registered sale deed dated 23.06.1969 as Ex.P1 On the other hand, the defendant examined DW1 Ra Singla and DW2 Lachman Singh, Field Kanungo. The defendant also produced in evidence letter dated 25.01.1982 (Ex.D1), report of Field 24.11.1981 (Ex.D2), site plan (Ex.D3), report o -stat copy of judgment dated 22.11.1966 (Ex.D5), copy of decree sheet (Ex.D6), copies of Jamabandi for the year 1977 of mutations Nos. 6727 to 6730 (Ex.D9 to D12), copy of Khata (Ex.D13), copies of Khatauni Paimaish (Ex.D14 to D14/3), and copy of Naksha (Ex.D15). Findings of the Trial Court The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence led by both sides, returned a finding that the plaintiff had prove of the disputed site by virtue of registered sale deed Ex.P1. The oral testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses supported his possession, and the sale deed being a registered document could not be brushed aside as forged or fabrica As regards the defendant’s evidence, the learned trial DW1 Ravinder Kumar Singla could not even state the dimensions of the land allegedly belonging to the Municipal Committee -3- Whether no valid notice was served upon Municipal Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD In support of his case, the plaintiff examined PW1 Surjit Singh, PW3 Singh SDO, and himself as PW2. He produced in red sale deed dated 23.06.1969 as Ex.P1 and report as Ex.P2. On the other hand, the defendant examined DW1 Ravinder Kumar go. The defendant also produced in evidence letter dated 25.01.1982 (Ex.D1), report of Field Kanungo dated 24.11.1981 (Ex.D2), site plan (Ex.D3), report of Field Kanungo dated 01.02.1982 copy of judgment dated 22.11.1966 (Ex.D5), copy of decree sheet (Ex.D6), copies of Jamabandi for the year 1977–78 (Ex.D7 and D8), copies of mutations Nos. 6727 to 6730 (Ex.D9 to D12), copy of Khatauni Istemal (Ex.D13), copies of Khatauni Paimaish (Ex.D14 to D14/3), and copy of Naksha , after considering the evidence led by both sides, returned a finding that the plaintiff had proved his ownership and possession of the disputed site by virtue of registered sale deed Ex.P1. The oral testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses supported his possession, and the sale deed being a registered document could not be brushed aside as forged or fabricated. As regards the defendant’s evidence, the learned trial Court held that DW1 Ravinder Kumar Singla could not even state the dimensions of the land Municipal Committee and his testimony was not - Municipal present form? OPD In support of his case, the plaintiff examined PW1 Surjit Singh, PW3 Singh SDO, and himself as PW2. He produced in Ex.P2. vinder Kumar go. The defendant also produced in dated dated 01.02.1982 copy of judgment dated 22.11.1966 (Ex.D5), copy of decree 78 (Ex.D7 and D8), copies temal (Ex.D13), copies of Khatauni Paimaish (Ex.D14 to D14/3), and copy of Naksha , after considering the evidence led by both d his ownership and possession of the disputed site by virtue of registered sale deed Ex.P1. The oral testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses supported his possession, and the sale deed being a registered held that DW1 Ravinder Kumar Singla could not even state the dimensions of the land and his testimony was not TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 reliable. The statement of DW2 Lachhman Singh, Field Kanugo, along with his report Ex.D2, was held not helpful to the defendant because the disputed site was not part of khasra Nos. 570/1 or 570/2. The documentary evidence prod Ex.D12 and Jamabandis Ex.D7 and Ex.D8, pertained to land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas, but the disputed site was distinct and different, measuring about 2½ kanals, and situated within the Lal Lakir. The jud Ex.D6 were also found irrelevant. 10. The trial him to be the owner in possession of the disputed site and entitled to permanent injunction. Findings of the First 11. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985. The lower appellate trial Court and observed that the execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 stood prove the attesting witness PW1 S corroborated by PW2 Radha Krishan and Arjan Singh, Lambardar of The Court further held that no plea disputed land formed part of khasra Nos. 570 and 571 or that it had been acquired for the construction of a bus stand. It was noted that no evidence was led by the defendant to prove that the disputed plot measur the acquired land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas. The appellate upheld the decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 1985 (O&M) reliable. The statement of DW2 Lachhman Singh, Field Kanugo, along with his report Ex.D2, was held not helpful to the defendant because the disputed site was not part of khasra Nos. 570/1 or 570/2. The documentary evidence produced by the defendant, such as mutations Ex.D9 to Ex.D12 and Jamabandis Ex.D7 and Ex.D8, pertained to land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas, but the disputed site was distinct and different, measuring about 2½ kanals, and situated within the Lal Lakir. The jud Ex.D6 were also found irrelevant. The trial Court thus decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding him to be the owner in possession of the disputed site and entitled to permanent Findings of the First Appellate Court Aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985. The lower appellate nd observed that the execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 stood prove the attesting witness PW1 Surjit Singh. The possession of the plaintiff was corroborated by PW2 Radha Krishan and Arjan Singh, Lambardar of further held that no plea was taken in the written statement that the disputed land formed part of khasra Nos. 570 and 571 or that it had been acquired for the construction of a bus stand. It was noted that no evidence was led by the defendant to prove that the disputed plot measur the acquired land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas. The appellate upheld the decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. -4- reliable. The statement of DW2 Lachhman Singh, Field Kanugo, along with his report Ex.D2, was held not helpful to the defendant because the disputed site was not part of khasra Nos. 570/1 or 570/2. The Court further noted that the uced by the defendant, such as mutations Ex.D9 to Ex.D12 and Jamabandis Ex.D7 and Ex.D8, pertained to land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas, but the disputed site was distinct and different, measuring about 2½ kanals, and situated within the Lal Lakir. The judgment Ex.D5 and decree sheet thus decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding him to be the owner in possession of the disputed site and entitled to permanent Aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985. The lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of the nd observed that the execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 stood proved by urjit Singh. The possession of the plaintiff was corroborated by PW2 Radha Krishan and Arjan Singh, Lambardar of Budhlada was taken in the written statement that the disputed land formed part of khasra Nos. 570 and 571 or that it had been acquired for the construction of a bus stand. It was noted that no evidence was led by the defendant to prove that the disputed plot measuring about 2½ kanals formed part of the acquired land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas. The appellate Court, therefore, upheld the decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. - reliable. The statement of DW2 Lachhman Singh, Field Kanugo, along with his report Ex.D2, was held not helpful to the defendant because the disputed site was further noted that the uced by the defendant, such as mutations Ex.D9 to Ex.D12 and Jamabandis Ex.D7 and Ex.D8, pertained to land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas, but the disputed site was distinct and different, measuring about 2½ gment Ex.D5 and decree sheet thus decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding him to be the owner in possession of the disputed site and entitled to permanent Aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and affirmed the findings of the d by urjit Singh. The possession of the plaintiff was Budhlada. was taken in the written statement that the disputed land formed part of khasra Nos. 570 and 571 or that it had been acquired for the construction of a bus stand. It was noted that no evidence was led by the ing about 2½ kanals formed part of , therefore, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 12. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. According to the appellant, the sale deed Ex.P1 does not establish plaintiff’s ownership since no khasra number detail is mentioned therein and it is vague. It is urged that there was overwhelming oral and documentary evidence in the form of revenue records, reports of revenue officers, mutations, a part of the land acquired for construction of a mini bus stand and vests in the Municipal Committee Order of this Court 13. During the pendency of this appeal, this 11.03.1986: “The controversy in appeal here is, whether the land in suit forms part of khasra numbers, 570 and 571 in acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State. In order to resolve this con Mansa may be appointed as Local Commissioner to go to the spot, and after actual spot verification to submit a report with regard to this matter. Report of Local Commissioner 14. In pursuance of the afore Harbans Singh, effect that acting on the conducted in Budhlada 1985 (O&M) Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present Regular Appeal has been filed by the defendant t is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. According to the appellant, the sale s not establish plaintiff’s ownership since no khasra number is mentioned therein and it is vague. It is urged that there was overwhelming oral and documentary evidence in the form of revenue records, reports of revenue officers, mutations, and earlier judgments to show that the site in dispute forms part of the land acquired for construction of a mini bus stand and vests in the Municipal Committee. Court dated 11.03.1986 in RSA During the pendency of this appeal, this Court The controversy in appeal here is, whether the land in suit forms part of khasra numbers, 570 and 571 in acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State. In order to resolve this controversy, parties have agreed that the Tehsildar, Mansa may be appointed as Local Commissioner to go to the spot, and after actual spot verification to submit a report with regard to this matter.” Report of Local Commissioner In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Local Commissioner , Tehsildar of Mansa, submitted his report dated 26.04.1986 cting on the Court’s instructions, the demarcation process was Budhlada. The parties involved were present, and measurements were -5- Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present Regular Appeal has been filed by the defendant–Municipal Committee, Budhlada t is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. According to the appellant, the sale s not establish plaintiff’s ownership since no khasra number or any is mentioned therein and it is vague. It is urged that there was overwhelming oral and documentary evidence in the form of revenue records, reports of revenue nd earlier judgments to show that the site in dispute forms part of the land acquired for construction of a mini bus stand and vests in the Court passed the following order on The controversy in appeal here is, whether the land in suit forms part of khasra numbers, 570 and 571 in Budhlada, which had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State. In order to troversy, parties have agreed that the Tehsildar, Mansa may be appointed as Local Commissioner to go to the spot, and after actual spot verification to submit a report with regard to said order, Local Commissioner, Shri submitted his report dated 26.04.1986 to the ’s instructions, the demarcation process was . The parties involved were present, and measurements were - Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present Regular Budhlada. s below erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. According to the appellant, the sale or any is mentioned therein and it is vague. It is urged that there was overwhelming oral and documentary evidence in the form of revenue records, reports of revenue nd earlier judgments to show that the site in dispute forms part of the land acquired for construction of a mini bus stand and vests in the passed the following order on The controversy in appeal here is, whether the land in suit forms part , which had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State. In order to troversy, parties have agreed that the Tehsildar, Mansa may be appointed as Local Commissioner to go to the spot, and after actual spot verification to submit a report with regard to Shri to the ’s instructions, the demarcation process was . The parties involved were present, and measurements were TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 taken to resolve the boundary dispute. The measurements of the paved road (pacca road) leading from Nos. 570/1, 570/2, 571/1, 571/3, were v area was confirmed to fall within Khasra No. 570/1, situated between the Kothi of Platiar and the metalled road. The boundary markers were clearly identified and no further dispute was raised by the parties. The repo measurements and boundaries were accurate, and the disputed land lies within Khasra No. 570/1, which was submitted for further legal action as per the instructions. Arguments of Appellant 15. Learned counsel for the appellant of the Local Commissioner, the disputed site clearly falls in khasra No. 570/1, which admittedly was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the finding of ownership and possession returned in favour of th Courts below cannot be sustained. The judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, it is contended, are liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. Arguments of the Respondent 16. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that boundaries of the suit property boundaries reflected in the report prepared by the urged that the ac proved, that the demarcation was not carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the High incorrectly recorded that the 1985 (O&M) taken to resolve the boundary dispute. The measurements of the paved road (pacca road) leading from Budhlada to Ratia and surrounding areas, including Khasra Nos. 570/1, 570/2, 571/1, 571/3, were verified and found correct. The disputed area was confirmed to fall within Khasra No. 570/1, situated between the Kothi of Platiar and the metalled road. The boundary markers were clearly identified and no further dispute was raised by the parties. The repo measurements and boundaries were accurate, and the disputed land lies within Khasra No. 570/1, which was submitted for further legal action as per the Arguments of Appellant Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in view of the report of the Local Commissioner, the disputed site clearly falls in khasra No. 570/1, which admittedly was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the finding of ownership and possession returned in favour of th s below cannot be sustained. The judgments and decrees passed by both the s below, it is contended, are liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to Arguments of the Respondent Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that boundaries of the suit property as described in the plaint differ materially from the boundaries reflected in the report prepared by the urged that the acquisition of land by the Municipal Committee proved, that the demarcation was not carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the High Court rules and orders, and that the local commissioner incorrectly recorded that the respondent admitted that the disputed land fell in -6- taken to resolve the boundary dispute. The measurements of the paved road (pacca to Ratia and surrounding areas, including Khasra erified and found correct. The disputed area was confirmed to fall within Khasra No. 570/1, situated between the Kothi of Platiar and the metalled road. The boundary markers were clearly identified and no further dispute was raised by the parties. The report concluded that the measurements and boundaries were accurate, and the disputed land lies within Khasra No. 570/1, which was submitted for further legal action as per the Court has argued that in view of the report of the Local Commissioner, the disputed site clearly falls in khasra No. 570/1, which admittedly was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the finding of ownership and possession returned in favour of the plaintiff by the s below cannot be sustained. The judgments and decrees passed by both the s below, it is contended, are liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that as described in the plaint differ materially from the boundaries reflected in the report prepared by the Local Commissioner. It is also Municipal Committee has not been duly proved, that the demarcation was not carried out in accordance with the procedure rules and orders, and that the local commissioner respondent admitted that the disputed land fell in - taken to resolve the boundary dispute. The measurements of the paved road (pacca to Ratia and surrounding areas, including Khasra erified and found correct. The disputed area was confirmed to fall within Khasra No. 570/1, situated between the Kothi of Platiar and the metalled road. The boundary markers were clearly identified and no rt concluded that the measurements and boundaries were accurate, and the disputed land lies within Court’s has argued that in view of the report of the Local Commissioner, the disputed site clearly falls in khasra No. 570/1, which admittedly was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the e plaintiff by the s below cannot be sustained. The judgments and decrees passed by both the s below, it is contended, are liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the as described in the plaint differ materially from the It is also has not been duly proved, that the demarcation was not carried out in accordance with the procedure rules and orders, and that the local commissioner respondent admitted that the disputed land fell in TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 khasra number 570. I local commissioner, therefore, the 17. The core controversy in this Seco demarcation that possession and from which he seeks protection by injunction is an independent plot belonging to him (within the “Lal Lakir”) or whether it falls wi Khasra No. 570/1 which, on the material on the record, has been treated as part of the land acquired and shown in mutation/custody of the two lower Court possession on the basis of Ex.P oral evidence. The appellant’s case has always rested upon revenue records, mutations and official reports contends, show that the disputed land is part of the acquired khasra(s) and that the Municipal Committee 18. When this on-the-spot verification, the Tehsildar (Mansa) went to both parties, recorded the statement of the plaintiff and prepared and submitted a detailed demarcation report dated 26.04.1986. The Local Commissioner’s report explains the method followed i.e. site inspection, tape measurement marks, reference to adjacent khasra number and roads, marking of A, B, C, D etc., and preparation of a plan and ultimately records the conclusion that the disputed place falls in Khasra No. 570/1. The report was made in discharge of a judicial direction and after actual inspection. The parties were given notice and both were present when measurements were taken. This fact is important, the Local Commissioner was not relying purely on papers, he 1985 (O&M) khasra number 570. It is further urged that there is no plan with the report of the local commissioner, therefore, the report cannot be relied upon being incomplete. The core controversy in this Seco that whether the disputed plot for which the plaintiff obtained possession and from which he seeks protection by injunction is an independent plot belonging to him (within the “Lal Lakir”) or whether it falls wi Khasra No. 570/1 which, on the material on the record, has been treated as part of the land acquired and shown in mutation/custody of the Courts have concurrently accepted the plaintiff’s case of ownershi session on the basis of Ex.P-1, the registered sale deed of 1969 together with oral evidence. The appellant’s case has always rested upon revenue records, mutations and official reports proved on record as show that the disputed land is part of the acquired khasra(s) and that the Municipal Committee is entitled to deal with the land. When this Court directed appointment of a Local Commissioner for spot verification, the Tehsildar (Mansa) went to both parties, recorded the statement of the plaintiff and prepared and submitted a detailed demarcation report dated 26.04.1986. The Local Commissioner’s report explains the method followed i.e. site inspection, tape measurement marks, reference to adjacent khasra number and roads, marking of A, B, C, D etc., and preparation of a plan and ultimately records the conclusion that the disputed place falls in Khasra No. 570/1. The report was made in discharge of a judicial direction and after actual inspection. The parties were given notice and both were present when measurements were taken. This Court fact is important, the Local Commissioner was not relying purely on papers, he -7- t is further urged that there is no plan with the report of the cannot be relied upon being incomplete. The core controversy in this Second Appeal is one of identity and whether the disputed plot for which the plaintiff obtained possession and from which he seeks protection by injunction is an independent plot belonging to him (within the “Lal Lakir”) or whether it falls within the area of Khasra No. 570/1 which, on the material on the record, has been treated as part of the land acquired and shown in mutation/custody of the Municipal Committee. The s have concurrently accepted the plaintiff’s case of ownership and the registered sale deed of 1969 together with oral evidence. The appellant’s case has always rested upon revenue records, proved on record as Ex.D1–D15 which, the appellant show that the disputed land is part of the acquired khasra(s) and that the is entitled to deal with the land. directed appointment of a Local Commissioner for spot verification, the Tehsildar (Mansa) went to the spot in the presence of both parties, recorded the statement of the plaintiff and prepared and submitted a detailed demarcation report dated 26.04.1986. The Local Commissioner’s report explains the method followed i.e. site inspection, tape measurements from fixed marks, reference to adjacent khasra number and roads, marking of A, B, C, D etc., and preparation of a plan and ultimately records the conclusion that the disputed place falls in Khasra No. 570/1. The report was made in discharge of a judicial direction and after actual inspection. The parties were given notice and both were Court is of the view that procedural fact is important, the Local Commissioner was not relying purely on papers, he - t is further urged that there is no plan with the report of the cannot be relied upon being incomplete. nd Appeal is one of identity and whether the disputed plot for which the plaintiff obtained possession and from which he seeks protection by injunction is an independent plot thin the area of Khasra No. 570/1 which, on the material on the record, has been treated as part of . The p and the registered sale deed of 1969 together with oral evidence. The appellant’s case has always rested upon revenue records, D15 which, the appellant show that the disputed land is part of the acquired khasra(s) and that the directed appointment of a Local Commissioner for the spot in the presence of both parties, recorded the statement of the plaintiff and prepared and submitted a detailed demarcation report dated 26.04.1986. The Local Commissioner’s report s from fixed marks, reference to adjacent khasra number and roads, marking of A, B, C, D etc., and preparation of a plan and ultimately records the conclusion that the disputed place falls in Khasra No. 570/1. The report was made in discharge of a judicial direction and after actual inspection. The parties were given notice and both were is of the view that procedural fact is important, the Local Commissioner was not relying purely on papers, he TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 performed an on recorded in his report. ‘plan’ is not attached with the report, is misplaced as the ‘plan’ prepared by the Local Commissioner is on the 19. Learned counsel for the respondent points to alleged errors in the measurement of the pacca road (in particular a challenge to the width recorded by the Local Commissioner as contrasted with Ex.P measurement in the report of the total area alleged to have been acquired by the Municipal Committee that the Local Commissioner did not measure separately the land alleged to be utilised by the Committ case from the outset was that the area purchased by him did not carry any khasra number and lay within the Lal Lakir and so that the link between Ex.P plot demarcated as 570/1 is no Findings of this Court 20. On a careful appraisal of the record, this conclusions. i) a judicial direction and is identifies fixed reference marks, describes karams absence of any dispute between the parties on the position of adjoining khasra boundari disputed site falls in Khasra No. 570/1 is not a bare ipse dixit, it follows from the measurements and from the accepted position of the 1985 (O&M) on-site demarcation and produced a plan and distances which he recorded in his report. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that ‘plan’ is not attached with the report, is misplaced as the ‘plan’ prepared by the Local Commissioner is on the paper-book of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent points to alleged errors in the measurement of the pacca road (in particular a challenge to the width recorded by the Local Commissioner as contrasted with Ex.P rement in the report of the total area alleged to have been acquired by the Municipal Committee and the dimensions of the acquired plot(s), the contention that the Local Commissioner did not measure separately the land alleged to be utilised by the Committee (roads, links, etc.), and the submission that the plaintiff’s case from the outset was that the area purchased by him did not carry any khasra number and lay within the Lal Lakir and so that the link between Ex.P plot demarcated as 570/1 is not established by the Commissioner’s Findings of this Court On a careful appraisal of the record, this First, the Local Commissioner’s report is produced pursuant to a judicial direction and is entitled to considerable weight. The report identifies fixed reference marks, describes karams between named marks and boundaries, and records the absence of any dispute between the parties on the position of adjoining khasra boundaries. The Tehsildar’s conclusion that the disputed site falls in Khasra No. 570/1 is not a bare ipse dixit, it follows from the measurements and from the accepted position of the -8- site demarcation and produced a plan and distances which he The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that ‘plan’ is not attached with the report, is misplaced as the ‘plan’ prepared by the book of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent points to alleged errors in the measurement of the pacca road (in particular a challenge to the width recorded by the Local Commissioner as contrasted with Ex.P-2), the absence of any rement in the report of the total area alleged to have been acquired by the and the dimensions of the acquired plot(s), the contention that the Local Commissioner did not measure separately the land alleged to be ee (roads, links, etc.), and the submission that the plaintiff’s case from the outset was that the area purchased by him did not carry any khasra number and lay within the Lal Lakir and so that the link between Ex.P-1 and the t established by the Commissioner’s report. On a careful appraisal of the record, this Court reaches the following , the Local Commissioner’s report is produced pursuant to entitled to considerable weight. The report identifies fixed reference marks, describes measurements taken in between named marks and boundaries, and records the absence of any dispute between the parties on the position of es. The Tehsildar’s conclusion that the disputed site falls in Khasra No. 570/1 is not a bare ipse dixit, it follows from the measurements and from the accepted position of the - site demarcation and produced a plan and distances which he The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that ‘plan’ is not attached with the report, is misplaced as the ‘plan’ prepared by the Learned counsel for the respondent points to alleged errors in the measurement of the pacca road (in particular a challenge to the width recorded by 2), the absence of any rement in the report of the total area alleged to have been acquired by the and the dimensions of the acquired plot(s), the contention that the Local Commissioner did not measure separately the land alleged to be ee (roads, links, etc.), and the submission that the plaintiff’s case from the outset was that the area purchased by him did not carry any khasra 1 and the reaches the following , the Local Commissioner’s report is produced pursuant to entitled to considerable weight. The report measurements taken in between named marks and boundaries, and records the absence of any dispute between the parties on the position of es. The Tehsildar’s conclusion that the disputed site falls in Khasra No. 570/1 is not a bare ipse dixit, it follows from the measurements and from the accepted position of the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 surrounding landmarks from present and the measurements were taken on the spot strengthens the evidentiary value of the report. order to resolve precisely that controversy, namely whether the site claimed by the plaintiff as an independent parcel within the Lal Lakir in fact falls in Khasra No. 570/1. The Tehsildar, appointed as Local Commissioner, visited the spot, took them to fixed landmarks the suit property marked A the location of which was not in dispute between the parties. The fact that the plaintiff i description as the Local Commissioner’s technical demarcation cannot in itself discredit the Commissioner’s report. The function of demarcation is to bring precision to what may otherwise be general desc Local Commissioner, in the presence of both sides, has carried out measurements and prepared a sketch/plan tied to undisputed fixed points, the description in the plaint yields to the more pre demarcation. ii) appellant and the material collected by Field Kanungo corroborates the proposition that the area described by the Local Commissio 1985 (O&M) surrounding landmarks i.e. the Kothi of Platiar, the pacca road leading from Budhlada to Ratia, the railway line. The fact that the parties were present and the measurements were taken on the spot strengthens the evidentiary value of the report. Moreover, the demarcation was ordered by this order to resolve precisely that controversy, namely whether the site claimed by the plaintiff as an independent parcel within the Lal Lakir in fact falls in Khasra No. 570/1. The Tehsildar, appointed as Local Commissioner, visited the spot, took them to fixed landmarks as detailed above the suit property marked A–B–C–D, and described adjoining khasras the location of which was not in dispute between the parties. The fact that the plaintiff in his plaint did not use precisely the same boundary description as the Local Commissioner’s technical demarcation cannot in itself discredit the Commissioner’s report. The function of demarcation is to bring precision to what may otherwise be general description of boundaries in pleadings. Once a judicially appointed Local Commissioner, in the presence of both sides, has carried out measurements and prepared a sketch/plan tied to undisputed fixed points, the description in the plaint yields to the more pre demarcation. Second, the revenue material produced by the appellant/defendant i.e mutations, Jamabandi entries, earlier reports and the material collected by Field Kanungo corroborates the proposition that the area described by the Local Commissio -9- the Kothi of Platiar, the pacca road leading to Ratia, the railway line. The fact that the parties were present and the measurements were taken on the spot strengthens the , the demarcation was ordered by this Court itself in order to resolve precisely that controversy, namely whether the site claimed by the plaintiff as an independent parcel within the Lal Lakir in fact falls in Khasra No. 570/1. The Tehsildar, appointed as Local Commissioner, visited the spot, took actual tape measurements, tied as detailed above, prepared a plan showing D, and described adjoining khasras the location of which was not in dispute between the parties. The fact n his plaint did not use precisely the same boundary description as the Local Commissioner’s technical demarcation cannot in itself discredit the Commissioner’s report. The function of demarcation is to bring precision to what may otherwise be general ription of boundaries in pleadings. Once a judicially appointed Local Commissioner, in the presence of both sides, has carried out measurements and prepared a sketch/plan tied to undisputed fixed points, the description in the plaint yields to the more precise , the revenue material produced by the mutations, Jamabandi entries, earlier reports and the material collected by Field Kanungo corroborates the proposition that the area described by the Local Commissioner as - the Kothi of Platiar, the pacca road leading to Ratia, the railway line. The fact that the parties were present and the measurements were taken on the spot strengthens the itself in order to resolve precisely that controversy, namely whether the site claimed by the plaintiff as an independent parcel within the Lal Lakir in fact falls in Khasra No. 570/1. The Tehsildar, appointed as Local actual tape measurements, tied , prepared a plan showing D, and described adjoining khasras the location of which was not in dispute between the parties. The fact n his plaint did not use precisely the same boundary description as the Local Commissioner’s technical demarcation cannot in itself discredit the Commissioner’s report. The function of demarcation is to bring precision to what may otherwise be general ription of boundaries in pleadings. Once a judicially appointed Local Commissioner, in the presence of both sides, has carried out measurements and prepared a sketch/plan tied to undisputed fixed cise , the revenue material produced by the mutations, Jamabandi entries, earlier reports and the material collected by Field Kanungo corroborates the ner as TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 Khasra Nos. 570/1, 570/2 and 571 constituting some six kanals and marlas has been treated in the records as vested in or in the possession of the were right to remark that those documen 6 kanals 12 marlas than the individual disputed plot. That, however, does not detract from the relevance of the revenue entries. If the Local Commissioner, by measurement, places the disputed plot inside the periphery of Kh entries which operate at the level of that khasra are plainly relevant. They supply independent corroboration of the conclusion that the land demarcated by the Commissioner is part of an area which the munici iii) discrepancies for example a criticism directed to the recorded width of the pacca road are capable of being over respondent points road and infers that there has been an over Commissioner. That is an argument about the precision of one of the linear measures recorded by the Commissioner but it does not throw doubt on the correctness of the larger demarcation itself where the Local Commissioner has measured distances between several successive fixed marks and has tied his measurements to acknowledged fixed points (Kothi, rail line, adjoining khasras), and the marks at the time of the demarcation. In other words, a single variance 1985 (O&M) Khasra Nos. 570/1, 570/2 and 571 constituting some six kanals and marlas has been treated in the records as vested in or in the possession of the Municipal Committee. The trial were right to remark that those documen 6 kanals 12 marlas than the individual disputed plot. That, however, does not detract from the relevance of the revenue entries. If the Local Commissioner, by measurement, places the disputed plot inside the periphery of Khasra No. 570/1 then the mutations and Jamabandi entries which operate at the level of that khasra are plainly relevant. They supply independent corroboration of the conclusion that the land demarcated by the Commissioner is part of an area which the municipal authority has come to hold by mutation. Third, the objections raised by the respondent as to minor discrepancies for example a criticism directed to the recorded width of the pacca road are capable of being over respondent points out that Ex.P-2 records a different dimension for the road and infers that there has been an over Commissioner. That is an argument about the precision of one of the linear measures recorded by the Commissioner but it does not throw doubt on the correctness of the larger demarcation itself where the Local Commissioner has measured distances between several successive fixed marks and has tied his measurements to acknowledged fixed points (Kothi, rail line, adjoining khasras), and the parties present did not dispute the location of adjoining boundary marks at the time of the demarcation. In other words, a single variance -10- Khasra Nos. 570/1, 570/2 and 571 constituting some six kanals and marlas has been treated in the records as vested in or in the possession . The trial Court and the appellate Court were right to remark that those documents related to a larger area i.e. 6 kanals 12 marlas than the individual disputed plot. That, however, does not detract from the relevance of the revenue entries. If the Local Commissioner, by measurement, places the disputed plot inside the asra No. 570/1 then the mutations and Jamabandi entries which operate at the level of that khasra are plainly relevant. They supply independent corroboration of the conclusion that the land demarcated by the Commissioner is part of an area which the pal authority has come to hold by mutation. , the objections raised by the respondent as to minor discrepancies for example a criticism directed to the recorded width of the pacca road are capable of being over-emphasised. The 2 records a different dimension for the road and infers that there has been an over-inclusion by the Local Commissioner. That is an argument about the precision of one of the linear measures recorded by the Commissioner but it does not throw doubt on the correctness of the larger demarcation itself where the Local Commissioner has measured distances between several successive fixed marks and has tied his measurements to acknowledged fixed points (Kothi, rail line, adjoining khasras), and parties present did not dispute the location of adjoining boundary marks at the time of the demarcation. In other words, a single variance - Khasra Nos. 570/1, 570/2 and 571 constituting some six kanals and 12 marlas has been treated in the records as vested in or in the possession Court ts related to a larger area i.e. 6 kanals 12 marlas than the individual disputed plot. That, however, does not detract from the relevance of the revenue entries. If the Local Commissioner, by measurement, places the disputed plot inside the asra No. 570/1 then the mutations and Jamabandi entries which operate at the level of that khasra are plainly relevant. They supply independent corroboration of the conclusion that the land demarcated by the Commissioner is part of an area which the pal authority has come to hold by mutation. , the objections raised by the respondent as to minor discrepancies for example a criticism directed to the recorded width emphasised. The 2 records a different dimension for the inclusion by the Local Commissioner. That is an argument about the precision of one of the linear measures recorded by the Commissioner but it does not throw doubt on the correctness of the larger demarcation itself where the Local Commissioner has measured distances between several successive fixed marks and has tied his measurements to acknowledged fixed points (Kothi, rail line, adjoining khasras), and parties present did not dispute the location of adjoining boundary marks at the time of the demarcation. In other words, a single variance TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 as to the width of a road particularly where the Commissioner’s plan shows the relationship of the disputed spot to landmarks is insufficient to nullify an otherwise coherent demarcation arising from multiple measurements. iv) Municipal Committee open at this stage. In the order passed by this appointing the Local Commissioner, it was specifically recorded that the controversy is whether the land in suit forms part of Khasra Nos. 570 and 571 which had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. That order itself proceeds on the basis that acquisition of those khasra numbers is not in dispute, determination was whether the plaintiff’s plot falls within acquired khasra the acquisition was not proved afresh before the trial appellate assumed for argument’s sake that the acquisitio plaintiff would still have to succeed on the strength of his own case. He must stand on his own legs and prove independent ownership and poss does not advance contain particulars site with the land within the Lal Lakir, but without correlation to measured khasra 1985 (O&M) as to the width of a road particularly where the Commissioner’s plan shows the relationship of the disputed spot to landmarks is insufficient to nullify an otherwise coherent demarcation arising from multiple measurements. The further objection that the acquisition of land by the Municipal Committee has not been independently proved is also not open at this stage. In the order passed by this appointing the Local Commissioner, it was specifically recorded that the controversy is whether the land in suit forms part of Khasra Nos. 0 and 571 which had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. That order itself proceeds on the basis that acquisition of those hasra numbers is not in dispute, determination was whether the plaintiff’s plot falls within acquired khasra numbers. In such circumstances, the argument that the acquisition was not proved afresh before the trial appellate Court does not assist the plaintiff. Even if it were to be assumed for argument’s sake that the acquisitio plaintiff would still have to succeed on the strength of his own case. He must stand on his own legs and prove independent ownership and possession. His reliance on Ex.P-1, does not advance his case sufficiently because that document does not contain particulars capable of unambiguously linking the purchased site with the land at site. At best, it is a general conveyance of a site within the Lal Lakir, but without correlation to measured khasra -11- as to the width of a road particularly where the Commissioner’s plan shows the relationship of the disputed spot to a network of fixed landmarks is insufficient to nullify an otherwise coherent demarcation arising from multiple measurements. The further objection that the acquisition of land by the has not been independently proved is also not open at this stage. In the order passed by this Court on 11.03.1986 appointing the Local Commissioner, it was specifically recorded that the controversy is whether the land in suit forms part of Khasra Nos. 0 and 571 which had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. That order itself proceeds on the basis that acquisition of those hasra numbers is not in dispute, the only controversy left for determination was whether the plaintiff’s plot falls within those . In such circumstances, the argument that the acquisition was not proved afresh before the trial Court or the does not assist the plaintiff. Even if it were to be assumed for argument’s sake that the acquisition was not proved, the plaintiff would still have to succeed on the strength of his own case. He must stand on his own legs and prove independent ownership and 1, the registered sale deed of 1969 fficiently because that document does not capable of unambiguously linking the purchased . At best, it is a general conveyance of a site within the Lal Lakir, but without correlation to measured khasra - as to the width of a road particularly where the Commissioner’s plan a network of fixed landmarks is insufficient to nullify an otherwise coherent The further objection that the acquisition of land by the has not been independently proved is also not on 11.03.1986 appointing the Local Commissioner, it was specifically recorded that the controversy is whether the land in suit forms part of Khasra Nos. 0 and 571 which had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. That order itself proceeds on the basis that acquisition of those the only controversy left for those . In such circumstances, the argument that or the does not assist the plaintiff. Even if it were to be n was not proved, the plaintiff would still have to succeed on the strength of his own case. He must stand on his own legs and prove independent ownership and the registered sale deed of 1969 fficiently because that document does not capable of unambiguously linking the purchased . At best, it is a general conveyance of a site within the Lal Lakir, but without correlation to measured khasra TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 numbers, to lie within Khasra No. 570/1. v) recording that the plaintiff admitted the suit land fell in Khasra No. 570. Learned counsel for the resp admission was never made. On implies that what the Local Commissioner noted was that the plaintiff himself pointed out the location of the suit property on the spot, and upon measurement 570/1. It is not an admission in the strict sense; rather it is a record that the plaintiff identified his plot and that plot, when measured, fell within the acquired khasra number. There is therefore no inconsistency with the plaintiff’s pleadings or position, the Commissioner was merely stating the effect of his measurement after the plaintiff identified the land. vi) per the High submission. The Local Commissioner’s report is a detailed one. It specifies the reference points, the tape measurements taken, the plan prepared, the adjoining khasras and their dimensions, and the presence of the procedure prescribed and there is no procedural irregularity in the demarcation exercise. vii) Ex.D1 does not carry the ma 1985 (O&M) numbers, it cannot outweigh demarcation showing the disputed land to lie within Khasra No. 570/1. The respondent also criticised the Local Commissioner for recording that the plaintiff admitted the suit land fell in Khasra No. 570. Learned counsel for the resp admission was never made. On a fair reading of the report, h implies that what the Local Commissioner noted was that the plaintiff himself pointed out the location of the suit property on the spot, and upon measurement that very location was found to lie in Khasra No. 570/1. It is not an admission in the strict sense; rather it is a record that the plaintiff identified his plot and that plot, when measured, fell within the acquired khasra number. There is therefore no consistency with the plaintiff’s pleadings or position, the Commissioner was merely stating the effect of his measurement after the plaintiff identified the land. As to the allegation that the demarcation was not carried out as per the High Court Rules and Orders, this submission. The Local Commissioner’s report is a detailed one. It specifies the reference points, the tape measurements taken, the plan prepared, the adjoining khasras and their dimensions, and the presence both sides at the time of demarcation. This is in conformity with the procedure prescribed and there is no procedural irregularity in the demarcation exercise. vii) Lastly, the reliance placed by the respondent on the sale deed Ex.D1 does not carry the matter further. That document, though a -12- it cannot outweigh demarcation showing the disputed land The respondent also criticised the Local Commissioner for recording that the plaintiff admitted the suit land fell in Khasra No. 570. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that such an a fair reading of the report, however, it implies that what the Local Commissioner noted was that the plaintiff himself pointed out the location of the suit property on the spot, and that very location was found to lie in Khasra No. 570/1. It is not an admission in the strict sense; rather it is a record that the plaintiff identified his plot and that plot, when measured, fell within the acquired khasra number. There is therefore no consistency with the plaintiff’s pleadings or position, the Commissioner was merely stating the effect of his measurement after As to the allegation that the demarcation was not carried out as and Orders, this Court finds no merit in that submission. The Local Commissioner’s report is a detailed one. It specifies the reference points, the tape measurements taken, the plan prepared, the adjoining khasras and their dimensions, and the presence both sides at the time of demarcation. This is in conformity with the procedure prescribed and there is no procedural irregularity in the Lastly, the reliance placed by the respondent on the sale deed tter further. That document, though a - it cannot outweigh demarcation showing the disputed land The respondent also criticised the Local Commissioner for recording that the plaintiff admitted the suit land fell in Khasra No. ondent argues that such an owever, it implies that what the Local Commissioner noted was that the plaintiff himself pointed out the location of the suit property on the spot, and that very location was found to lie in Khasra No. 570/1. It is not an admission in the strict sense; rather it is a record that the plaintiff identified his plot and that plot, when measured, fell within the acquired khasra number. There is therefore no consistency with the plaintiff’s pleadings or position, the Commissioner was merely stating the effect of his measurement after As to the allegation that the demarcation was not carried out as finds no merit in that submission. The Local Commissioner’s report is a detailed one. It specifies the reference points, the tape measurements taken, the plan prepared, the adjoining khasras and their dimensions, and the presence both sides at the time of demarcation. This is in conformity with the procedure prescribed and there is no procedural irregularity in the Lastly, the reliance placed by the respondent on the sale deed tter further. That document, though a TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 registered conveyance, is vague as to the identity of the property. It does not describe precise measurements and therefore cannot be said to prove ownership of the specific parcel in dispute. When contrasted with the revenue records and supported by sanctioned mutations in favour of the plaintiff’s claim. 21. For these reasons, this Court is Commissioner’s findings are sound on a balance of probabilities and that the disputed plot, as demarcated by the Commissioner, falls within Khasra No. 570/1. Once that factual conclusion is accepted, it follows that the plaintiff cannot maintain the injunction claimed insofar as it seeks to restrain the Committee from dealing with or constructing shops upon the land which forms part of the acquired khasra/property of the sale deed Ex.P demarcation and the revenue records, sustain an exclusive possessory title against the Municipal Committee Accordingly, the concurrent judgments and decrees of the judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathi restrained the Municipal Committee disputed plot must be set aside. The plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction is liable to be dismissed. 1985 (O&M) registered conveyance, is vague as to the identity of the property. It does not describe precise measurements and therefore cannot be said to prove ownership of the specific parcel in dispute. When contrasted with the Local Commissioner’s on revenue records and supported by sanctioned mutations in favour of the Municipal Committee, Ex.D1 is too general to sustain the plaintiff’s claim. For these reasons, this Court is Commissioner’s findings are sound on a balance of probabilities and that the disputed plot, as demarcated by the Commissioner, falls within Khasra No. 570/1. Once that factual conclusion is accepted, it follows that the plaintiff cannot injunction claimed insofar as it seeks to restrain the from dealing with or constructing shops upon the land which forms part of the acquired khasra/property of the Municipal Committee sale deed Ex.P-1 cannot, in the face of the demarcation and the revenue records, sustain an exclusive possessory title against Municipal Committee for the parcel shown to be part of Khasra No. 570/1. ordingly, the concurrent judgments and decrees of the judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda insofar as they have decreed the suit of the plaintiff and Municipal Committee from interfering with the possession of the disputed plot must be set aside. The plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction is liable to be dismissed. -13- registered conveyance, is vague as to the identity of the property. It does not describe precise measurements and therefore cannot be said to prove ownership of the specific parcel in dispute. When contrasted Local Commissioner’s on-the-spot demarcation tied to revenue records and supported by sanctioned mutations in favour of , Ex.D1 is too general to sustain the For these reasons, this Court is satisfied that the Local Commissioner’s findings are sound on a balance of probabilities and that the disputed plot, as demarcated by the Commissioner, falls within Khasra No. 570/1. Once that factual conclusion is accepted, it follows that the plaintiff cannot injunction claimed insofar as it seeks to restrain the Municipal from dealing with or constructing shops upon the land which forms Municipal Committee. The registered 1 cannot, in the face of the Local Commissioner’s credible, demarcation and the revenue records, sustain an exclusive possessory title against for the parcel shown to be part of Khasra No. 570/1. ordingly, the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below i.e. judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by the learned Additional nda insofar as they have decreed the suit of the plaintiff and from interfering with the possession of the disputed plot must be set aside. The plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction is - registered conveyance, is vague as to the identity of the property. It does not describe precise measurements and therefore cannot be said to prove ownership of the specific parcel in dispute. When contrasted spot demarcation tied to revenue records and supported by sanctioned mutations in favour of , Ex.D1 is too general to sustain the Local Commissioner’s findings are sound on a balance of probabilities and that the disputed plot, as demarcated by the Commissioner, falls within Khasra No. 570/1. Once that factual conclusion is accepted, it follows that the plaintiff cannot Municipal from dealing with or constructing shops upon the land which forms . The registered Commissioner’s credible, demarcation and the revenue records, sustain an exclusive possessory title against for the parcel shown to be part of Khasra No. 570/1. i.e. the judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by the learned Additional nda insofar as they have decreed the suit of the plaintiff and from interfering with the possession of the disputed plot must be set aside. The plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2402-1985 Conclusion 22. In view of the findings recorded above allowed and the judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class the learned Addition 23. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. September 23, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 1985 (O&M) In view of the findings recorded above allowed and the judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Mansa and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, are set aside. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes. -14- In view of the findings recorded above, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by al District Judge, Bathinda, are set aside. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking - he Regular Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 13.05.1983 passed by the learned Sub and the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1985 passed by TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document