JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, M. - This is a revision against the judgment and order dated May 31, 1973 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in appeal No. 5 of 1972-73/Mainpuri. 2. The facts are briefly that a demarcation application was submitted in respect of plot number 2582. Notice was issued to various parties and the Supervisor Kanungo submitted a demarcation report dated June 25, 1972 along with a sketch map. This was objected to by the revisionist on various grounds. The learned trial court confirmed the report. 3. An appeal filed against this order has been allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner on the ground that proper notice had not been served on one of the parties aggrieved. 4. It is of interest to peruse the demarcation report submitted by the Supervisor Kanungo. It does not mention any fixed points having been taken as starting points of measurements made by him. He has submitted a brief report stating that certain boundaries were found correct and others short by a certain number of karis. He then states that he corrected that position on the spot and told the parties that they should appear on a certain date before the Sub-Divisional Officer if they had any objection. Along with this so-called report, he has submitted a sketch map showing the plot in dispute as surrounded by other plots. This sketch map does not even attempt to show the actual position of the boundaries as found by the Supervisor Kanungo and the revised boundaries being proposed by him for approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The sketch map appears merely to be a copy of an extract from the village map. 5. It is obvious that the so-called report of the Supervisor Kanungo is not a report but an intimation to the Sub-Divisional Officer of a demarcation made by him on the spot without any authority of the court concerned. There is absolutely no attempt to justify his claim that certain boundaries were found to be incorrect nor any mention of any cross-examination nor any discussion by him of the position on the spot which could constitute an attempt by him to justify the conclusions reached by him in respect of the boundaries. The sketch map should have contained two sets of lines showing the boundaries affected-one line showing the actual position on the spot and the other the proposed position. 6. The sketch map should have contained two sets of lines showing the boundaries affected-one line showing the actual position on the spot and the other the proposed position. 6. The above elementary requirements of a proper reports not having been fulfilled in the present instance, the so-called demarcation made must be set aside. 7. The revision application is, therefore, rejected.