JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present regular second appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2003 title Mahesh Prashad vs. Shiv Ram and others whereby learned District Judge Mandi accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. Brief facts of the case 2. Shri Mahesh Prashad plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction pleaded therein that plaintiff is owner in possession of house and land comprised in Khata No. 75, Khatauni No. 124 Khasra Nos. 920, 926 and 928 measuring 206.21 Sq. metres situated in Mohal Purani Mandi Tehsil Sadar District Mandi as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94. It is pleaded that defendants have purchased the suit land adjoining to the suit property and raised construction about 3/4 years back. It is pleaded that defendants raised shuttering over the house of plaintiff and plaintiff requested the defendants to remove the shuttering but defendants threatened the plaintiff. It is pleaded that defendants forcibly constructed slab over land of plaintiff in illegal manner. It is pleaded that plaintiff requested the defendants to remove the encroachment over land of plaintiff but defendants did not accept the request of plaintiff. Prayer for decree of suit sought as mentioned in relief clause of plaint. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants pleaded therein that present suit is not maintainable and plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. It is pleaded that plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act conduct and acquiesance. It is pleaded that suit is not properly valued for purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. It is pleaded that plaintiff has encroached upon the land of defendants measuring 8.69 sq. metres and defendants have filed the separate suit. It is pleaded that application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC also filed against the plaintiff. It is denied that defendants have raised projection over the house of plaintiff. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action and suit is not valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Plaintiff also filed replication and re-asserted allegations mentioned in plaint. It is denied that defendants have raised projection over the house of plaintiff. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action and suit is not valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Plaintiff also filed replication and re-asserted allegations mentioned in plaint. As per the pleadings of parties learned Trial Court framed following issues on 15.10.2000:- 1. Whether defendants have created obstructions by construction of projection over the house of plaintiff as alleged if so its effect? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from raising further structure over the house of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in present form? ……OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? …..OPD 5. Whether suit is counter blast to the suit filed by defendants? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? …OPD 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the Court fee and jurisdiction? ….ODP 8. Relief 5. Learned Trial Court decided issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in negative and decided issues No. 4 partly in affirmative. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court Mahesh Parshad filed appeal before learned District Judge Mandi and learned District Judge Mandi accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. Learned District Judge Mandi passed decree for mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants and directed the defendants to remove about 6 inches of their slab towards the house of plaintiff as shown in field map Ext.PW4/A. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Mandi appellants filed present RSA which was admitted on following substantial questions of law on 24.4.2006:- 1. Whether learned first Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence regarding the alleged encroachment correctly and was misled by the spot inspection? 2. Whether looking to the fact that the area of the alleged over-hanging encroachment is insignificant, the first Appellate Court ought not to have passed decree of mandatory injunction directing the demolition of the over-hanging portion? 8. Whether learned first Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence regarding the alleged encroachment correctly and was misled by the spot inspection? 2. Whether looking to the fact that the area of the alleged over-hanging encroachment is insignificant, the first Appellate Court ought not to have passed decree of mandatory injunction directing the demolition of the over-hanging portion? 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of parties and also perused the entire record carefully. 9. Findings upon point No.1 of substantial question of law with reasons:- 9.1 PW1 Mahesh has stated that he has constructed the house in the year 1977. He has stated that adjoining land was owned by Krishna and Rukmani and defendants have purchased the land from Krishna and Rukmani. He has stated that about 5-6 years ago construction was raised in ground floor and in the month of July 1999 defendants raised construction of second storey. He has stated that defendants have extended the projection slab of their house upon the land of plaintiff. He has stated that he and his mother requested the defendants not to extend the projection slab towards the house of plaintiff but defendants did not accept the request of plaintiff and his mother. He has stated that legal notice was also sent to defendants but defendants did not stop the construction and raised the slab. He has stated that illegal construction of slab raised by defendants be removed. He has admitted that defendants have filed another civil suit against him. He has denied suggestion that he has blocked the air of defendants. He has denied suggestion that he has encroached 8.69 sq. metres land owned by defendants. He has denied suggestion that defendants have not extended the slab projection towards the house of plaintiff. He has denied suggestion that defendants have raised slab projection over the land owned by defendants. 9.2 PW2 Pushap Raj has stated that parties are known to him. He has stated that he is residing in the house of Mahesh since July 1988. He has stated that defendants have started construction in the month of July 1999 and further stated that defendants have raised the slab projection towards the land of plaintiff. He has stated that defendants have encroached the land owned by plaintiff by way of slab projection. He has stated that defendants have started construction in the month of July 1999 and further stated that defendants have raised the slab projection towards the land of plaintiff. He has stated that defendants have encroached the land owned by plaintiff by way of slab projection. He has denied suggestion that he is deposing falsely in favour of plaintiff because he is tenant of plaintiff. 9.3 PW3 Kaushlya Devi has stated that parties are known to her. She has stated that Mahesh constructed the house about 24-25 years back. She has stated that Shiv Ram has raised the construction 4-5 years ago. She has stated that co-defendant Shiv Ram has extended the slab projection upon the house of plaintiff. She has stated that plaintiff requested the defendants not to raise slab projection but defendants did not accept the request of plaintiff. She has stated that she does not know that plaintiff has encroached upon land of defendants. 9.4 PW4 Ram Nath Field Kanungo has stated that in the month of August 1999 he was posted as Field Kanungo. He has stated that he conducted the demarcation as per direction of Tehsildar. He has stated that Patwari was also along with him at the time of demarcation. He has stated that field map Ext.PW4/A was prepared. He has stated that as per demarcation slab projection was extended by way of encroachment to the extent of 2.12 sq. metre upon Khasra No. 926/1. He has denied suggestion that he did not demarcate the land at the spot. He has stated that opposite party was not present at the spot despite prior information given by halqua Patwari. He has denied suggestion that he did not visit the spot. He has denied suggestion that field map Ext.PW4/A was prepared in Patwar office. 9.5 PW5 Kehar Singh Patwari has stated that field map Ext.PW4/A was prepared by him as per direction issued by Field Kanungo. He has stated that he has prepared field map as per copy of Musabi. He has stated that due to clerical mistake he has written Khasra No. 926/1 instead of Khasra No.928 in the field map. He has stated that field map Ext.PW4/A was prepared from Musabi and Latha. He has denied suggestion that field map Ext.PW4/A was prepared in Patwar office. Self stated that same was prepared at the spot. He has stated that due to clerical mistake he has written Khasra No. 926/1 instead of Khasra No.928 in the field map. He has stated that field map Ext.PW4/A was prepared from Musabi and Latha. He has denied suggestion that field map Ext.PW4/A was prepared in Patwar office. Self stated that same was prepared at the spot. He has denied suggestion that field map Ext.PW4/A prepared at the instance of plaintiff. 9.6 DW1 Shiv Ram has stated that he did not raise any slab projection upon land of plaintiff. He has stated that he has raised his entire construction upon land owned by defendants. He has stated that he has also filed separate suit against the plaintiff and further stated that present suit has been filed just to harass the defendants. He has stated that he did not encroach upon any portion of suit land owned by plaintiff. He has denied suggestion that legal notice was also given to him. He has denied suggestion that he has received legal notice. 10. Following documentaries evidence filed by the parties. (1) Ext.PW4/A is Aks Tatima (Field map). (2) Ext.PZ is copy of jamabandi for the year 1993-94 qua Khasra Nos. 920, 926, 928. (3) Ext.PC is the copy of Musabi. (4) Ext.PA is copy of Aks Tatima Sazra (Settlement). 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that learned first Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence regarding the alleged encroachment correctly is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case original demarcation report or certified copy of original demarcation report not placed on record in order to prove encroachment in civil suit. It is well settled law that whenever there is any boundary dispute inter se parties then original demarcation report or certified copy of original demarcation report should be placed on record in Civil Court. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that demarcation conducted by Field Kanungo was affirmed by revenue officer as per H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954. As per Section 107 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 it is only revenue officer i.e. Assistant Collector 1st Grade or Assistant Collector 2nd Grade who could affirm demarcation report submitted by Field Kanungo. Field Kanungo and Patwari are not revenue officers as defined under Section 7 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954. As per Section 107 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 it is only revenue officer i.e. Assistant Collector 1st Grade or Assistant Collector 2nd Grade who could affirm demarcation report submitted by Field Kanungo. Field Kanungo and Patwari are not revenue officers as defined under Section 7 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954. As per Section 7 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 revenue officers have been classified as follows. (1) Financial Commissioner. (2) Commissioner. (3) Collector. (4) Assistant Collector 1st Grade. (5) Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. It is held that demarcation conducted by field Kanungo is only intermediate stage of demarcation proceedings. It is held that demarcation becomes final as per Section 107 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 when demarcation conducted by Field Kanungo is affirmed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade or Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. It is held that intermediate report of demarcation is not final demarcation as defined under Section 107 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954. It is held that demolition order cannot be passed by Civil Court on the basis of intermediate demarcation report submitted by Field Kanungo. 12. Demarcation of boundary under Section 107 of H.P. Land Revenmue Act 1954 is quasi judicial and statutory function. (1) Demarcation should be essentially affirmed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade or Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. (2) Before starting demarcation to locate the boundary fix points should be ascertained from the parties and statements of parties regarding fix points should be recorded. (3) Where triangle system of measurement is adopted then three fix points should be fixed in field map so that disputed land falls within three points and then measurement should be carried out from all three points. (4) Where square system of measurement is adopted then disputed land should be shown in square system in field map and measurement should be carried out from all points in square system. (5) After demarcation boundary should be fixed by erecting the boundary so that there would be no dispute later on. Statements of parties after demarcation is over must be recorded which should form part of demarcation report. (6) Before going at the spot revenue officer must inform all parties by notice in writing regarding time and date of his visit to the spot and copy of such notice should be retained on record of demarcation report. (7) Copy of musabi shall be used for measurement. (6) Before going at the spot revenue officer must inform all parties by notice in writing regarding time and date of his visit to the spot and copy of such notice should be retained on record of demarcation report. (7) Copy of musabi shall be used for measurement. See AIR 2000 HP 130 title Kamal Dev and another vs. Hans Raj. See ILR 1984 HP 317 title Radha Swami Satsang vs. State of H.P. See AIR 1995 SC 665 title State of H.P. and others vs. Mangat Ram and others. See (2010)1 HLR 474 Amar Singh vs. Narpat Ram. 13. Even in present case there is material contradiction between testimonies of PW4 Field Kanungo namely Ram Nath and PW5 Kehar Singh Patwari. PW4 Ram Nath Field Kanungo has specifically stated that defendants have encroached upon Khasra No. 926/1 measuring 2.12 Sq. metre owned by plaintiff. PW5 Kehar Singh Patwari has specifically stated that encroachment was done by defendants on Khasra No. 928 measuring 2.12 sq. metre. In view of material contradictions between testimonies of PW4 Field Kanungo and PW5 Patwari regarding Khasra number of encroachment it is not expedient in the ends of justice to rely upon field map Ext.PW4/A placed on record for passing demolition decree of super structure in civil suit. 14. Court has carefully perused the field map relating to encroachment Ext.PW4/A placed on record. Ext.PW4/A is signed by PW4 Field Kanungo and PW5 Patwari. There is no recital in report Ext.PW4/A placed on record that there is clerical mistake relating to khasra number of encroachment mentioned in field map Ext.PW4/A. In field map Ext.PW4/A encroachment has been mentioned in Khasra No. 926/1 measuring 2.12 sq. metre but as per testimony of Halqua Patwari PW5 there is encroachment upon Khasra No. 928 measuring 2.12 sq. metre and there is no encroachment in Khasra Number 926/1. In view of above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice to affirm demolition decree passed by learned District Judge Mandi (H.P.) on the basis of field map Ext.PW4/A which is ipso facto defective in nature. 15. Even demolition order cannot be passed on the basis of testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 because PWs 1 to 3 are not revenue expert. 15. Even demolition order cannot be passed on the basis of testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 because PWs 1 to 3 are not revenue expert. Even demolition order cannot be passed on the basis of spot inspection conducted by learned District Judge Mandi (H.P.) because inspection report of learned District Judge Mandi is not on record. Even there is no evidence on record in order to prove that learned District Judge Mandi took assistance of expert i.e. revenue officers for ascertaining encroachment. Point No. 1 is decided in favour of appellants. Findings upon point No. 2 of substantial question of law with reasons 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that learned first Appellate Court ought not to have passed decree of mandatory injunction directing the demolition of structure is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that learned District Judge was under legal obligation to seek assistance of revenue expert in demolition case in civil suit. In present case learned District Judge did not seek assistance of revenue expert when learned District Judge Mandi visited spot. Learned District Judge Mandi simply relied upon field map Ext.PW4/A which is ipse facto defective in nature. In view of material contradictions between field map Ext.PW4/A and testimony of Field Kanungo and Halqua Patwari it is not expedient in the ends of justice to pass any decree of demolition in present case. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent that demolition order can be passed on the basis of field map Ext.PW4/A is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that no original demarcation report or certified copy of original demarcation report placed on record in present case. It is held that there is no evidence on record in order to prove that demarcation conducted by field Kanungo was affirmed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade or 2nd Grade as required under Section 107 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954. Point No. 2 is answered in affirmative in favour of appellants. Relief 18. In view of above findings appeal is accepted and judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court affirmed and judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Point No. 2 is answered in affirmative in favour of appellants. Relief 18. In view of above findings appeal is accepted and judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court affirmed and judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Learned Registrar Judicial will prepare decree sheet as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 forthwith. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Files of learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court along with certified copy of judgment and decree sheet be sent back forthwith. RSA is disposed of. Miscellaneous pending applications if any also stands disposed of.