RSA-1306-2022 (O&M) [110] Jaipal State of Haryana and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] Rule 27 read with [2] behalf of the respondent [3] Haryana, is also present in Court. [4] findings recorded by the learned No.40-RBT and others’ not to prefer appeal as liberty has been granted to the respondents to conduct fresh demarcation notice. [5] (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1306 Date of Decision : versus State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Dr. Parveen Hans, Advocate forthe appellant. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Notice of the application (CM Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC as well as in the main appeal. Mr. Amandeep Joshi, learned AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Saurav Chauhan, SDE from the office of PWD (B&R), Haryana, is also present in Court. It has been admitted by the findings recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar RBT of 2018 titled as ‘Darshana and others’ have been accepted by the Department an not to prefer appeal as liberty has been granted to the respondents to conduct fresh demarcation qua construction raised by plaintiff after giving prior Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1306-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision :12.03.2025 …Appellant ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for CM-2636-C-2025) under Order 41 Section 151 CPC as well as in the main appeal. Mr. Amandeep Joshi, learned AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on SDE from the office of PWD (B&R), It has been admitted by the learned State Counsel that the Addl. District Judge, Hisar in Civil Appeal Kumari versus State of Haryana 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 construction raised by plaintiff after giving prior Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant 1 2025) under Order 41 Mr. Amandeep Joshi, learned AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on SDE from the office of PWD (B&R), ounsel that the in Civil Appeal Kumari versus State of Haryana d it has been decided not to prefer appeal as liberty has been granted to the respondents to conduct construction raised by plaintiff after giving prior Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1306-2022 (O&M) shall also be entitled for parity. [6] Chauhan, regular second appeal is also allowed in terms of the findings recorded in Civil Appeal Haryana and others’. [7] State of Haryana and others possessee held as under: (O&M) all also be entitled for parity. Learned State Counsel on instructions from SDE, PWD (B&R), Haryana, does not object regular second appeal is also allowed in terms of the findings recorded in Civil Appeal No.40-RBT of 2018 titled as ‘ Haryana and others’. Learned Lower Appellate Court in 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 th 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 let 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 serv 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 on instructions from Mr. Saurav does not object, in case, the present regular second appeal is also allowed in terms of the findings recorded in RBT of 2018 titled as ‘Darshana Kumari versus State of Learned Lower Appellate Court in ‘Darshana Kumari versus ’ while allowing the appeal preferred by the 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 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 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 2 Mr. Saurav in case, the present regular second appeal is also allowed in terms of the findings recorded in Kumari versus State of Kumari versus ’ while allowing the appeal preferred by the 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 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 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 at 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 ter 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 ed 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 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1306-2022 (O&M) (O&M) encroachment made by plaintiff has been shown at serial no 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 instruction 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 as to how he made the measurements. In the impugned demarcation, how measurements were taken after ascertaining the relevant survey stones, has not been disclosed in any manner. It is further necessary that Local Commissioner should check the record of settlement/consolidation and the area of the fields abutting the area in dispute and their respective survey stones by which boundary in dispute is got demarcated, must be clearly reflected in the Naksha ascertained survey stones from the land in question must be clearly shown. The above said instructions issued by Financial Commissioner were not complied with by the defendants at the time of conducting the demarcation in question on 29.06.2015. When the issue regarding illegality of the demarcation conducted by the defendants was raised before learned trial court, it ought to have considered whether same had been conducted in compliance of the requisite rules as highlighted above. Failure in considering the said rules amount to an error in law. 20. As noted above, the demarcation report Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 does not disclose that any notice was issued to the plaintiff prior to or during demarcation. In the written statement, defendants claimed that plaintiff was present at the time of demarcation but she refused to put her signatures on the attendance sheet. The said fact has not been proved by the defendants at all. DW1 Jai Bhagwan, S.D.O was never present at the time of said demarcation. No other 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. Financial Commissioner, Haryana has issued detailed instruction 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 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 Further more, rules provide that Local Commissioner must explain in detail as to how he made the measurements. In the impugned demarcation, how measurements were taken after ascertaining the relevant survey stones, has not been disclosed in is further necessary that Local Commissioner should check the record of settlement/consolidation and the area of the fields abutting the area in dispute and their respective survey stones by which boundary in dispute is got demarcated, must be ected in the Naksha Tafawat in which the distance of the ascertained survey stones from the land in question must be clearly shown. The above said instructions issued by Financial Commissioner were not complied with by the defendants at the time conducting the demarcation in question on 29.06.2015. When the issue regarding illegality of the demarcation conducted by the defendants was raised before learned trial court, it ought to have considered whether same had been conducted in compliance of the requisite rules as highlighted above. Failure in considering the said rules amount to an error in law. As noted above, the demarcation report Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 does not disclose that any notice was issued to the plaintiff prior to or In the written statement, defendants claimed that plaintiff was present at the time of demarcation but she refused to put her signatures on the attendance sheet. The said fact has not been proved by the defendants at all. DW1 Jai Bhagwan, S.D.O present at the time of said demarcation. No other 3 .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 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 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 Further more, rules provide that Local Commissioner must explain in detail as to how he made the measurements. In the impugned demarcation, how measurements were taken after ascertaining the relevant survey stones, has not been disclosed in is further necessary that Local Commissioner should check the record of settlement/consolidation and the area of the fields abutting the area in dispute and their respective survey stones by which boundary in dispute is got demarcated, must be Tafawat in which the distance of the ascertained survey stones from the land in question must be clearly shown. The above said instructions issued by Financial Commissioner were not complied with by the defendants at the time conducting the demarcation in question on 29.06.2015. When the issue regarding illegality of the demarcation conducted by the defendants was raised before learned trial court, it ought to have considered whether same had been conducted in compliance of the requisite rules as highlighted above. Failure in considering the As noted above, the demarcation report Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 does not disclose that any notice was issued to the plaintiff prior to or In the written statement, defendants claimed that plaintiff was present at the time of demarcation but she refused to put her signatures on the attendance sheet. The said fact has not been proved by the defendants at all. DW1 Jai Bhagwan, S.D.O present at the time of said demarcation. No other RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1306-2022 (O&M) (O&M) evidence to prove the said fact, has been led by the defendants. It has been categorically held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana in CWP 8268 of 2001 titled as Pritam Kaur Vs. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, decided on 06.08.2008 that demarcation of land must inevitably, be preceded by service of notice upon all persons likely to be affected. It was further categorically held that the demarcation of land has to be carried out in accordance with the instructions issued by Financial Commissioner. In the present case, no attempt was made by the defendants to secure the presence of the plaintiff either prior to or during the demarcation dated 29.06.2015 and further the demarcation was not conducted in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. Therefore, demarcation report dated 29.06.2015 is violative of the principles of natural justice and cannot be held as legally valid. 21. It is further pertinent to note that in the plaint, the plainti categorically raised the plea that in the impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21, defendants merely alleged that plaintiff had encroached some land belonging to government without even specifying the khasra number or killa number. Hence, the defendants w put to notice by the plaintiff to specify the land upon which the encroachment was alleged by the defendants. When defendants filed their written statement, even in the said written statement, they did not disclose the khasra or killa number up allegedly made any encroachment. Defendants only claimed that the land upon which plaintiff has raised construction of her house, although it is a factory, was already acquired by the government vide Award No.35-H dated 29.01.1960 for cons road. The copy of said award has been tendered on record as Ex.D7. The land purchased by the plaintiff in khasra no.564//2/1(1 10) and 3/1(0-5) is not included in that Award and has never been acquired by the State government. Thereaft examined DW1 Jai Bhagwan, SDO who deposed that the encroachment was made by plaintiff in khasra no.1398 which was owned by the government. It only remains to be noted that as per encroachment map Ex.D5, the encroachment was stated to hav been made in khasra no.1297 and not in khasra no.1398 as alleged by DW1. Thereafter, DW1 Jai Bhagwan, SDO was cross evidence to prove the said fact, has been led by the defendants. It has been categorically held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana in CWP 8268 of 2001 titled as Pritam Kaur Vs. Commissioner, Rohtak ed on 06.08.2008 that demarcation of land must inevitably, be preceded by service of notice upon all persons likely to be affected. It was further categorically held that the demarcation of land has to be carried out in accordance with the ued by Financial Commissioner. In the present case, no attempt was made by the defendants to secure the presence of the plaintiff either prior to or during the demarcation dated 29.06.2015 and further the demarcation was not conducted in e instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. Therefore, demarcation report dated 29.06.2015 is violative of the principles of natural justice and cannot be held as It is further pertinent to note that in the plaint, the plaintiff had categorically raised the plea that in the impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21, defendants merely alleged that plaintiff had encroached some land belonging to government without even specifying the khasra number or killa number. Hence, the defendants were clearly put to notice by the plaintiff to specify the land upon which the encroachment was alleged by the defendants. When defendants filed their written statement, even in the said written statement, they did not disclose the khasra or killa number upon the plaintiff allegedly made any encroachment. Defendants only claimed that the land upon which plaintiff has raised construction of her house, although it is a factory, was already acquired by the government H dated 29.01.1960 for construction of a public road. The copy of said award has been tendered on record as Ex.D7. The land purchased by the plaintiff in khasra no.564//2/1(1 5) is not included in that Award and has never been acquired by the State government. Thereafter, the defendants examined DW1 Jai Bhagwan, SDO who deposed that the encroachment was made by plaintiff in khasra no.1398 which was owned by the government. It only remains to be noted that as per encroachment map Ex.D5, the encroachment was stated to hav been made in khasra no.1297 and not in khasra no.1398 as alleged by DW1. Thereafter, DW1 Jai Bhagwan, SDO was cross-examined 4 evidence to prove the said fact, has been led by the defendants. It has been categorically held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana in CWP 8268 of 2001 titled as Pritam Kaur Vs. Commissioner, Rohtak ed on 06.08.2008 that demarcation of land must inevitably, be preceded by service of notice upon all persons likely to be affected. It was further categorically held that the demarcation of land has to be carried out in accordance with the ued by Financial Commissioner. In the present case, no attempt was made by the defendants to secure the presence of the plaintiff either prior to or during the demarcation dated 29.06.2015 and further the demarcation was not conducted in e instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. Therefore, demarcation report dated 29.06.2015 is violative of the principles of natural justice and cannot be held as ff had categorically raised the plea that in the impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21, defendants merely alleged that plaintiff had encroached some land belonging to government without even specifying the ere clearly put to notice by the plaintiff to specify the land upon which the encroachment was alleged by the defendants. When defendants filed their written statement, even in the said written statement, on the plaintiff allegedly made any encroachment. Defendants only claimed that the land upon which plaintiff has raised construction of her house, although it is a factory, was already acquired by the government truction of a public road. The copy of said award has been tendered on record as Ex.D7. The land purchased by the plaintiff in khasra no.564//2/1(1- 5) is not included in that Award and has never been er, the defendants examined DW1 Jai Bhagwan, SDO who deposed that the encroachment was made by plaintiff in khasra no.1398 which was owned by the government. It only remains to be noted that as per encroachment map Ex.D5, the encroachment was stated to have been made in khasra no.1297 and not in khasra no.1398 as alleged examined RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1306-2022 (O&M) (O&M) and in his cross-examination, he rather admitted that no demarcation of khasra no.1398 has been got conducted by the defendants till date. If that was the case, then no encroachment was even done in khasra no.1398 by the plaintiff as alleged by DW1 in his evidence. In his examination encroachment was done by plaintiff in khasra no.1398 but in his cross-examination, he later admitted that said khasra number was not even acquired under the Award Ex.D7. As per encroachment map Ex.P5, alleged encroachment was stated to be done by the plaintiff in khasra no.1297. The said khasra number was not specified by the defendants in their written statement. The said khasra number was not even specified in the impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21. The said khasra number was not stated to be the land of encroachment by DW1 in his evidence before the Court. He claimed that encroachment was done in khasra no.1398 which is contrary to the encroachment map Ex.D5. The said demarcation was allegedly conducted by Rattan Singh, retired Kanungo with the help of survey machine provided by owner of Balaji Land Solution and Land Surveying. Neither the said Kanungo has been examined nor the private surveyor has been examined by the defendants in order to prove the authenticity of the demarcation conducted by the Kanungo. In Pritam Kaur case (supra ) it was further categorically held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that where specific khasra number or specific part of khasra number in which any person is alleged to be in an unauthorized occupation, is not specified, then such demarcation report is vague and cannot be relied upon. 22. In view of the above said discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that demarcation dated 29.06.2015 conducted by the defendants qua the land of plaintiff, was not carried out in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. There is no evidence to show that any notice was served upon plaintiff prior to conducting the said demarcation. The impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 did not specify the khasra or killa number upon which the plaintiff has allegedly made encroachment and hence, the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration that the demarcation dated 29.06.2015, was illegal qua the rights of plaintiff and the notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 were also examination, he rather admitted that no demarcation of khasra no.1398 has been got conducted by the ill date. If that was the case, then no encroachment was even done in khasra no.1398 by the plaintiff as alleged by DW1 in his evidence. In his examination-in-chief, DW1 claimed that encroachment was done by plaintiff in khasra no.1398 but in his mination, he later admitted that said khasra number was not even acquired under the Award Ex.D7. As per encroachment map Ex.P5, alleged encroachment was stated to be done by the plaintiff in khasra no.1297. The said khasra number was not efendants in their written statement. The said khasra number was not even specified in the impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21. The said khasra number was not stated to be the land of encroachment by DW1 in his evidence before the Court. He oachment was done in khasra no.1398 which is contrary to the encroachment map Ex.D5. The said demarcation was allegedly conducted by Rattan Singh, retired Kanungo with the help of survey machine provided by owner of Balaji Land Solution Neither the said Kanungo has been examined nor the private surveyor has been examined by the defendants in order to prove the authenticity of the demarcation conducted by the Kanungo. In Pritam Kaur case (supra ) it was further categorically le Punjab & Haryana High Court that where specific khasra number or specific part of khasra number in which any person is alleged to be in an unauthorized occupation, is not specified, then such demarcation report is vague and cannot be In view of the above said discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that demarcation dated 29.06.2015 conducted by the defendants qua the land of plaintiff, was not carried out in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial . There is no evidence to show that any notice was served upon plaintiff prior to conducting the said demarcation. The impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 did not specify the khasra or killa number upon which the plaintiff has allegedly made hence, the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration that the demarcation dated 29.06.2015, was illegal qua the rights of plaintiff and the notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 were also 5 examination, he rather admitted that no demarcation of khasra no.1398 has been got conducted by the ill date. If that was the case, then no encroachment was even done in khasra no.1398 by the plaintiff as alleged by DW1 in chief, DW1 claimed that encroachment was done by plaintiff in khasra no.1398 but in his mination, he later admitted that said khasra number was not even acquired under the Award Ex.D7. As per encroachment map Ex.P5, alleged encroachment was stated to be done by the plaintiff in khasra no.1297. The said khasra number was not efendants in their written statement. The said khasra number was not even specified in the impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21. The said khasra number was not stated to be the land of encroachment by DW1 in his evidence before the Court. He oachment was done in khasra no.1398 which is contrary to the encroachment map Ex.D5. The said demarcation was allegedly conducted by Rattan Singh, retired Kanungo with the help of survey machine provided by owner of Balaji Land Solution Neither the said Kanungo has been examined nor the private surveyor has been examined by the defendants in order to prove the authenticity of the demarcation conducted by the Kanungo. In Pritam Kaur case (supra ) it was further categorically le Punjab & Haryana High Court that where specific khasra number or specific part of khasra number in which any person is alleged to be in an unauthorized occupation, is not specified, then such demarcation report is vague and cannot be In view of the above said discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that demarcation dated 29.06.2015 conducted by the defendants qua the land of plaintiff, was not carried out in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial . There is no evidence to show that any notice was served upon plaintiff prior to conducting the said demarcation. The impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 did not specify the khasra or killa number upon which the plaintiff has allegedly made hence, the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration that the demarcation dated 29.06.2015, was illegal qua the rights of plaintiff and the notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 were also RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1306-2022 (O&M) (O&M) legally invalid, null and void and liable to be set aside. 23. A person in unauthorized occupation of public land is guilty of misappropriation of public property and such unauthorized occupants, whatsoever, be their status, should not escape the consequences of their illegal acts. However, in view of absence of any valid evidence to establish encroachment of plaintiff over the government land, this Court has no option but to declare the demarcation dated 29.06.2015 Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 as legally invalid qua the rights of the plaintiff and to also declare the demolition notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 as illegal, null and void. 24. Resultantly, the finding rendered by learned Trial Court upon issue no.1(a) is not legally sustainable and is liable to be overturned. The findings rendered by learned trial court on issues no.1, 2 and 3 stand affirmed as they were not under challenge in the present appeal. Resultantly, the present appeal hereby succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. The impugned judgment dated 21.04.2018 is hereby set aside only to the extent that it denied the relief regarding the declaration of impugned demarcation report dated 29.06.2015 and impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 as illegal, null and void. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed to the effect that the defendants are restrained from demolishing the construction raised by the plaintiff over the land comprised in khasra no. 564//2/1(1 measuring 1 kanal 15 marla as per mutation no.5597 dated 23.01.2008 and jamabandi of 2008 further hereby declared 29.06.2015 Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 is violative of principles of natural justice and against factual position, null and void only qua the land of plaintiff and notice no.362 dated 17.2.2016 Ex.P19, notice no.870 dated 20.04.2016 Ex 26.07.2016 Ex.P21, issued on the basis of said demarcation report are illegal, against the natural justice and are hereby set aside. However, the defendants shall remain at liberty to conduct fresh demarcation of the construct prior notice to the plaintiff and conducting the demarcation in accordance with the instructions issued by Financial Commissioner. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Trial Court record along with a copy of judgment b legally invalid, null and void and liable to be set aside. uthorized occupation of public land is guilty of misappropriation of public property and such unauthorized occupants, whatsoever, be their status, should not escape the consequences of their illegal acts. However, in view of absence of o establish encroachment of plaintiff over the government land, this Court has no option but to declare the demarcation dated 29.06.2015 Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 as legally invalid qua the rights of the plaintiff and to also declare the demolition Ex.P21 as illegal, null and void. Resultantly, the finding rendered by learned Trial Court upon issue no.1(a) is not legally sustainable and is liable to be overturned. The findings rendered by learned trial court on issues no.1, 2 and 3 as they were not under challenge in the present appeal. Resultantly, the present appeal hereby succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. The impugned judgment dated 21.04.2018 is hereby set aside only to the extent that it denied the declaration of impugned demarcation report dated 29.06.2015 and impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 as illegal, null and void. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed to the effect that the defendants are restrained from struction raised by the plaintiff over the land comprised in khasra no. 564//2/1(1-10) and 3/1(0-5) total land measuring 1 kanal 15 marla as per mutation no.5597 dated 23.01.2008 and jamabandi of 2008- 2009 situated at Hansi. It is further hereby declared that the demarcation report dated 29.06.2015 Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 is violative of principles of natural justice and against factual position, null and void only qua the land of plaintiff and notice no.362 dated 17.2.2016 Ex.P19, notice no.870 dated 20.04.2016 Ex.P10 and notice no.2548 dated 26.07.2016 Ex.P21, issued on the basis of said demarcation report are illegal, against the natural justice and are hereby set aside. However, the defendants shall remain at liberty to conduct fresh demarcation of the construction raised by plaintiff after giving prior notice to the plaintiff and conducting the demarcation in accordance with the instructions issued by Financial Commissioner. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Trial Court record along with a copy of judgment be sent back. Appeal file be 6 uthorized occupation of public land is guilty of misappropriation of public property and such unauthorized occupants, whatsoever, be their status, should not escape the consequences of their illegal acts. However, in view of absence of o establish encroachment of plaintiff over the government land, this Court has no option but to declare the demarcation dated 29.06.2015 Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 as legally invalid qua the rights of the plaintiff and to also declare the demolition Resultantly, the finding rendered by learned Trial Court upon issue no.1(a) is not legally sustainable and is liable to be overturned. The findings rendered by learned trial court on issues no.1, 2 and 3 as they were not under challenge in the present appeal. Resultantly, the present appeal hereby succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. The impugned judgment dated 21.04.2018 is hereby set aside only to the extent that it denied the declaration of impugned demarcation report dated 29.06.2015 and impugned notices Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 as illegal, null and void. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed to the effect that the defendants are restrained from struction raised by the plaintiff over the land 5) total land measuring 1 kanal 15 marla as per mutation no.5597 dated 2009 situated at Hansi. It is that the demarcation report dated 29.06.2015 Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 is violative of principles of natural justice and against factual position, null and void only qua the land of plaintiff and notice no.362 dated 17.2.2016 Ex.P19, notice .P10 and notice no.2548 dated 26.07.2016 Ex.P21, issued on the basis of said demarcation report are illegal, against the natural justice and are hereby set aside. However, the defendants shall remain at liberty to conduct fresh ion raised by plaintiff after giving prior notice to the plaintiff and conducting the demarcation in accordance with the instructions issued by Financial Commissioner. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Trial Court e sent back. Appeal file be RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1306-2022 (O&M) [8] the subject arisen wherein there are two c demarcation learned Lower Appellate Court in Court does not find any reason view thereof, the present appeal is by the Courts below is quashed being Natural Justice. However, defendants are granted liberty to conduct fresh demarcation with respect to the construction raised by plaintiff after giving prior notice to hi accordance with law. [9] [10] disposed off 12.03.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) consigned to the record room after due compliance. It is not denied that it is the same demarcation report, which is the subject-matter of the present second appeal. Thus, the situation has arisen wherein there are two conflicting views with respect to the same demarcation report. Once State has reconciled to the view learned Lower Appellate Court in ‘Darshana Court does not find any reason not to grant parity to the present view thereof, the present appeal is allowed by the Courts below is quashed being Natural Justice. However, defendants are granted liberty to conduct fresh demarcation with respect to the construction raised by plaintiff after giving prior notice to him. Needless to say, demarcation be conducted strictly in accordance with law. Disposed off accordingly. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. 12.03.2025 consigned to the record room after due compliance.” It is not denied that it is the same demarcation report, which is matter of the present second appeal. Thus, the situation has onflicting views with respect to the same . Once State has reconciled to the view formulated by the ‘Darshana Kumari’s case (supra), this to grant parity to the present appellant. In allowed. Demarcation report relied upon by the Courts below is quashed being in violation of the Principles o Natural Justice. However, defendants are granted liberty to conduct fresh demarcation with respect to the construction raised by plaintiff after giving . Needless to say, demarcation be conducted strictly in All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 7 It is not denied that it is the same demarcation report, which is matter of the present second appeal. Thus, the situation has onflicting views with respect to the same by the ), this . In relied upon s of Natural Justice. However, defendants are granted liberty to conduct fresh demarcation with respect to the construction raised by plaintiff after giving . Needless to say, demarcation be conducted strictly in All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document