JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-9-1975 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14-3-1975 by the learned trial court in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P. Z. A and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The plaintiff's case is that Mahant Paras Ram had given a lease of plot number 74 (M) area 63.44 acres in favour of his two sons Lalit Mohan and Jyoti Prasad on 1-3-1952, that after zamindari abolition, they became bhumidhars of the land, that the land in dispute being 3 acres and part of the larger plot number 74(M) area 63.44 acres was got released by the defendant Pitamber Dutt wrongly from the forest Settlement Officer and that the defendant having no title to the land is liable to be ejected. The case of the defendant Pitamber Dutt is that the land in question is not identifiable, that the basis of the plaintiff's title which is the lease has not been filed in original, that the defendant has become bhumidhar by obtaining sanad bhumidhari of the land in question which is according to the present numbering after record operation's plot number 547-B area 127 acres and 575-B area 1.73 acres, that the land of the plaintiff is in plot number 547-A which is separate from the above 3 acres land, that the defendant-appellant is bhumidhar of the land in question and the plaintiff has no concern with this land at all. The learned trial court has decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs are sirdar of plot number 74(M) area 63.44 acres and that the land in dispute is part of this plot and is also identifiable on the spot in accordance with the report of the Advocate-Commissioner Sir Singhal. The learned Additional Commissioner has confirmed this decree giving a finding that the land is identifiable, relying on the report of the Advocate-Cora-missioner and also holding that the defendant appellant has not been able to show as to how he acquired his title. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner has confirmed this decree giving a finding that the land is identifiable, relying on the report of the Advocate-Cora-missioner and also holding that the defendant appellant has not been able to show as to how he acquired his title. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the lease which is the basis of the plaintiff's title has not been filed according to Section 64 of the Evidence Act the document must be proved by primary evidence and Section 65 of the Act does not apply, that the said lease 1-3-1962 was executed shortly before the zamindari abolition and under Section 24 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, all contracts and agreements after 1-7-1948 have been declared null and void, that the land is not identifiable in the sense that it does not form part of plot number 74(M) (old) and plot number 547-A (new), that even report of Sri Rawat survey expert dated 3 7-72 shows that Lalit Mohan already, had 67.94 acres which was in excess of the land 63.44 acres according to the lease and this report had not been considered by the courts below, that the sanad bhumidhari in favour of the defendant had not been cancelled and the learned trial court in this case under Section 229B/209 of the Act had no jurisdiction to cancel the sanad bhumidhari and that the finding of both the courts below are not based on evidence on record and are perverse and vitiated. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the certified copy of the lease is admissible and the plaintiffs name was recorded over the entire area 53.44 acres of which he has become bhumidhar, that no Plea had been taken earlier that the lease executed after 1-7-1948 is void and this plea cannot be taken now, that the report of the vakil commissioner forms part of the record and is admissible as evidence and it clearly shows that the land is identifiable and forms part of the holding of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel cited rulings reported in AIR 1976 All. 101, AIR 1924 Cal. 623 and AIR 1940 P.C. 3 in support of his contention that the court should not normally interfere with the findings in the local inspection. The learned counsel cited rulings reported in AIR 1976 All. 101, AIR 1924 Cal. 623 and AIR 1940 P.C. 3 in support of his contention that the court should not normally interfere with the findings in the local inspection. He further argued that it is the settled law that on the question of identifiability, no suit should fail and if anything is left out in respect of identifiability, it is to be taken up in execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant has further cited a ruling reported in AIR 1954 SC 526 in support of his contention that the plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of his own title. He argued that the learned Additional Commissioner could not base his finding on any weakness in the defendant's case. 6. It appears that the plot number 74 is a very big plot of area running into several hundred acres and most of it was declared a reserved forest. The trouble started when various applicants approached the Forest Settlement Officer for exemption of their land from the forest reservation. Regarding the three acres in dispute Pitamber Dutt first approached on 5-12-1966 and this area was exempted by the order dated 30-12-1966 which was later on recalled in 1967 but it appears that ultimately the Forest Settlement Officer by his order dated 15-7-1971 exempted that area from the reserved forest boundary. The two parties disputed their respective claims before the Forest Settlement Officer but the Forest Settlement Officer being concerned only with the Settlement of land as reserved forest, had nothing to do with the claims for the land outside the reserved forest. It is further seen that a dispute of possession culminating in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was decided with the possession being released in favour of the defendant in 1970. It is further seen from record that the land of both the parties is adjoining. The main question involved is regarding the identifiability of the land in dispute. This does not mean that the location of the land in dispute is in doubt, the land in dispute, on the other hand, can be peecisely fixed but its relationship to the land records, particularly the Settlement may, has not been precisely established. The main question involved is regarding the identifiability of the land in dispute. This does not mean that the location of the land in dispute is in doubt, the land in dispute, on the other hand, can be peecisely fixed but its relationship to the land records, particularly the Settlement may, has not been precisely established. It is again a peculiar feature of this case that although there has been a record operation about 1969 but the plaintiff has continued to insist on the old plot number 74(M) which being the minjumla has never been precisely established as to where it is, The oral evidence produced by the parties held only in establishing the location of the land in dispute which has not remained in doubt indeed. 7. Find that both the courts below have blindly relied upon the advocate-commissioner's report. In fact, the order referring the matter for demarcation to the Vakil-Commissioner itself was not a happy one. When it is a full settlement plot or even a part plot shown in the current village map and the plaintiffs assertion is likely to be established by such survey by the Vakil Commissioner, a local Inspection could be possible and desirable. But the law does not permit a regular demarcation or fixation of boundary by either the demarcation amin or a vakil commissioner in a declaratory suit The two functions are entirely different Demarcation is resorted to when one knows that the two parties have their land with their established title on either side of an uncertain disputed belt and the only remedy is to fix the boundary line precisely. A declaratory suit is required when there is no dispute about the location of the land, its plot number, its area and its shape but only the ownership is disputed on the basis not connected with uncertainty of marginal possession or boundary. The whole trouble in the present case arose because the plaintiffs were never sure of the limits of their minjumla plot of area 63.44 acres. The so called Zamindar being their own father had granted a lease with a plan of the land attached which did not disclose any relationship with the record map or the settlement map. It appears that the Vakil-Commissioner has utilised for his measurements the plaint map and the map with order of the Forest Settlement Officer dated 21-9-1965. The so called Zamindar being their own father had granted a lease with a plan of the land attached which did not disclose any relationship with the record map or the settlement map. It appears that the Vakil-Commissioner has utilised for his measurements the plaint map and the map with order of the Forest Settlement Officer dated 21-9-1965. This latter map is supposed to show the 63.44 acres released in favour of the plaintiff. From the report only confusion becomes evident. The land in dispute was found to be 2.945 acres. The land in possession of the plaintiffs was found 45.98 acres. The report was submitted on 30-10-1971 and the objection was filed on 11-11-1971. I can see from the judgment of the learned trial court that the objection was not given any consideration. The objection that the vakil-commissioner failed to demarcate the area 63.44 acres is correct. The objection that he did not carry out measurements from the fixed points is also correct. The fixed points always mean the fixed point in the Settlement map. The Vakil-Commissioner did not take into consideration either any Sehadda or Dhuadda or a well marked in the settlement map or other prominent fixed points. The only guiding feature which appears to be correct was the road. But one line is not sufficient for a faithful survey. This vakil-commissioner was more concerned in showing the land in possession of the plaintiff to be short of 63.44 acres so that 3 acres in dispute could be claimed by the plaintiffs rather than using the record operation map showing the new plot numbers and the latest position. He also did not carry out measurements of the plot on either sides of the boundary belonging to either party so that after checking up the correct areas as in the record operations the boundary could be correctly fixed. The result was that wrong operation was carried out in still more wrong manner. The learned trial court is no loss to blame for he should have directed the vakil commissioner to utilise the latest village map with the latest plot numbers and the corrected areas, if at all any demarcation was needed. 8. A copy of the extract village map showing the khasra number 74/1 which is paper number 18/21 in the trial court's record gives a better idea. 8. A copy of the extract village map showing the khasra number 74/1 which is paper number 18/21 in the trial court's record gives a better idea. Although it is not The latest map, it shows the land which includes the so called leased land to the plaintiffs in plot number 74/1 (exempt part) which is shown to be 67.5 acres as existing forest. The report of the survey expert dated 3-7-1972 which is paper number 40/3 shows that the land supposed to be 63.44 acres released in favour of the plaintiffs was found to be actually 75.94 acres i.e. 12 5 acres in excess. There is hardly any doubt that the plaintiffs have been fighting for just nothing. In the extract Khatauni 13/2F to 74F, the plaintiffs land is given plot number 74/13. Parcha Khatauni paper number 8/10 filed by the defendant shows the plot number 575-A to be same as old plot number 74/13/area 63.44 acres and Parcha Khatauni paper number 8/11 shows plot number 547-E old plot number 74(MO area 1 27 acres. I am surprised why the distinct new plot numbers and the map made after the record operation were not utilised. The survey by the vakil-commissioner was obviously on incorrect and insufficient basis. As the matter now boils down to whether 3 acres land in dispute was part of the plot number 572-A/63, 44 or plot number 575-B/1.73 plus plot number 547-B/127, the necessary and most natural action should have been for the plaintiffs to move for demarcation under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act and only if after such demarcation it was found that the defendant was in possession of any part of plot number 575-A, then the present suit would, arise. The only conclusion is that the present suit is not only misconceived but is also premature. Indications from the above analysis are that in the area 75.94 acres measured by Sri Rawat survey expert on 3-7-1972 included 63.44 acres of the plaintiff, 3 acres of the defendant and over 9 acres of others. That report shows that even the land in possession of Lalit Mohan was found to be 67.94 acres i.e., about 41/2 acres more than they could claim, and the disputed land was never a part of their leased land. 9. That report shows that even the land in possession of Lalit Mohan was found to be 67.94 acres i.e., about 41/2 acres more than they could claim, and the disputed land was never a part of their leased land. 9. There is no doubt left that the work done and the report of the vakil-commissioner was not only futile but also misguided. He did not take the necessary and usual case to check up the areas of plots on either side of the disputed boundary. The order by the learned trial court was to demarcate certain plot or area but the vakil-commissioner by not fixing any boundary failed in the very purpose of demarcation no interpretation can show that this report establishes that the three acres disputed land was identifiable. The question still remains as to what plot number was identifiable with the disputed land. The Vakil-Commissioner could not say anything on the point. 10. Coming to the rulings cited, the contention that a commissioner's report need not to be proved is not disputed. But the contention that the commissioner's report must be accepted as it is really a tall order. The two rulings on the point cited only say that an-honest and careful report after local inspection or work done with diligence should not be rejected without clearly defined and sufficient grounds. The above discussion has provided many such grounds. The report was true compliance of the order and was not helpful either. 11. Other points argued by the learned counsel for the appellant appear to me only extra points, for when the plaintiffs has not established their own case, has not been able to identify the land in dispute as any specific plot or part of any specific plot proved to be within this holding. There is hardly any case either for declaration or for ejectment, Still, it must be said that the lease dated 1-3-1952 was registered on 14-5-1952, about 6 weeks before the abolition of zamindari and in view of Section 24 of the U.P.Z. and L.R. Act, the said lease must be held null and void also for the respondent's counsel has not been about to show this lease did not have effect to entitle the intermediary (plaintiff's) father to receive higher rehabilitation grant. In view of this provision, the lease was null and void and there is no reservation that it would be declared null and void only for limited purposes, so the lease would loose value everywhere. I may also observe that the learned trial court had no authority to cancel the sanad in this suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. But as I observed in the beginning of this para, these considerations must be considered just additional and extra for the main ground of non-identifiability of the land has been very well established by the appellant. Not only that, indications are there that there is confusion in the various maps prepared by parties earlier that on 3-7-1972. But the most unreliable and confused survey must be deemed to be that of the vakil-commissioner. As a result, the case of the plaintiff having not been established, the suit was bound to fail. As for the demarcation by the vakil-commissioner, it was entirely uncalled for in this case. The situation clearly demand a proper demarcation by the tehsil authorities with the assistance of the survey staff. In the circumstances, the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 12. In consequence, the appeal succeed and is allowed with costs, the judgments and decree of both the courts below are hereby set aside and the suit stands dismissed.