Norang Singh vs Nahar Singh and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—This order shall dispose of the aforesaid five petitions as common issues are involved in these petitions. In this order the parties are referred to by their original positions in the suit. Plaintiff has brought this revision challenging the order dated August 13, 2014 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Nabha.

The plaintiff is the decree holder. The decree has attained finality. The learned District Judge, Patiala by his order dated January 03, 2013 has allowed the appeal against the order of the learned trial court which has been reversed in favour of the plaintiff by passing the decree. However, he has clarified that at the time of delivery of possession in execution, a fresh demarcation of the suit land be got conducted in accordance with Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. 1, Chapter 1-M and decree sheet be prepared accordingly. In the proceedings before the Execution Court, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nabha has ordered that the "...suit land of the DH be demarcated firstly". Consequently, issuance of warrants of possession has been deferred to await the report of demarcation.

The learned counsel submits that the impugned direction of the execution court is not proper when it directs the land of the petitioner DH to be demarcated first. The court should have ordered the demarcation work of the adjoining lands of both the parties to be carried out simultaneously by following the prescribed procedure so that no dispute remains as to the encroachment.

After all, the suit was for removal of encroachment made by the JD upon the land of the petitioner and findings have come in favour of the decree holder which establishes that the defendants have encroached upon the land of the decree holder. What remains is to mark out the encroachment and to restore it in terms of the decree. The High Court Rules and Orders prescribe a survey to be conducted in cases of demarcation.

There is substance in the contention of the petitioner. The impugned direction was not called for as it is one sided if literally followed. It is justified to assert that the demarcation should be carried out from the lands of the JD to DH together when they adjoin each other and are part of a single tract of land.

Therefore, the petition is accepted and the impugned direction is set aide. The revenue officers would now demarcate the land in the presence of the parties within 10 days of receipt of certified copy of this order by following strictly the procedure prescribed by the High Court Rules and Orders by marking two pakka thaddas from where the measurements can be taken, and to present their report before the learned execution court within three working days thereof. Before the demarcation work is undertaken both the parties be put to notice so that they make themselves available on the time and day fixed for the purpose. With these observations, the petitions stand disposed of.