Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:-Briefly stated, facts of the case are that one Balbir Singh,resident of village Jagshi, District Sonepat was owner of landsituated at Ashok Vihar Colony, Kutani Road, Panipat; he had sold aplot measuring 150 square yards comprised in khasra No.87 killaNo.8(7-0), 13(7-8), 18/1(1-13) total land measuring 16 kanals 1marla to defendants S/Sh.Dhanender son of Pawan Kumar, Lachman,Munna Lal and Shambhu Nath sons of Raj Kumar, residents ofAshok Vihar Colony, Panipat vide sale deed No.1092 dated15.5.2001 and he had also sold 6 marla 6 sarsai of land comprised inkhasra No.87, killa No.9(7-2), 10/1 (0-14), 10/2(6-3), total landmeasuring 13 kanals 19 marlas to plaintiff Sh.Om Parkash son ofSh.Maman Ram, resident of village Jalmana, Tehsil Bapoli, DistrictPanipat vide sale deed No.12927 dated 14.3.2007. 2. However, the dispute arose between the vendees of thetwo sale deeds, which was essentially of demarcation. The plaintiffOm Parkash had filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction againstdefendants--Dhanender, Lachman, Munna Lal and Shambhu Nath,on getting notice defendants No.2 to 4 put in appearance and filedwritten statement contesting the suit. 3. Issues on merits were framed. The parties were affordedadequate opportunities to lead evidence. Tehsildar, Panipat wasappointed as Local Commissioner by the Court, who had submittedhis report Ex.PW3/A. The trial Court placing reliance upon the reportof Local Commissioner Ex.PW3/A, in which it had been observedthat the suit land belonging to the plaintiff falls in Killa No.10/1 and10/2 of rectangle No.87 and it had been illegally encroached upon bythe defendants, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and defendants wererestrained from interfering in the ownership rights of the plaintiffover the suit property and from raising any construction over it videjudgment and decree dated 14.5.2014. 4. The defendants felt aggrieved by the said judgment anddecree and they had filed an appeal, which was dismissed byAdditional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated6.10.2015. 5. Still feeling dissatisfied, the defendants have knocked atthe door of this Court by way of filing regular second appeal, noticeof which was issued to the respondents/plaintiffs and respondent No.1, who is contesting respondent has put in appearance through counsel. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 7. The dispute between the parties is essentially ofdemarcation. Both the parties have got the sale deeds in their favour.The khasra numbers of the area purchased by them are different. Thepoint of difference is the exact location of the plots of thecontestants. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 7. The dispute between the parties is essentially ofdemarcation. Both the parties have got the sale deeds in their favour.The khasra numbers of the area purchased by them are different. Thepoint of difference is the exact location of the plots of thecontestants. The trial Court had appointed Tehsildar, Panipat to visitthe spot and carry out the demarcation. He accordingly did so on18.4.2009 and submitted his report in the Court. Now the questionarises as to whether the report could be accepted as such or wasrequired to be proved in accordance with law. No doubt the reportcould have been accepted, if both the parties had agreed to do so andnone of the parties had raised any objection against the report.However, defendants had reservations regarding the report. Underthe circumstances, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff, who wasrelying upon the report to get it proved in accordance with law bysummoning the Local Commissioner. However, it was not done andin his place one Sh.Rajbir Singh, Naib Sadar Kanungo, Panipat wasexamined. Admittedly, the demarcation had been carried out byTehsildar, Panipat, who had been appointed by the Court and NaibSadar Kanungo could not possibly prove that report and depose thatthe demarcation had been conducted properly. The matter wouldhave been different, if Tehsildar, Panipat was not available or hadgone abroad or for that matter was not alive but then there is nothingon file to show that. PW3 Sh.Rajbir Singh, Naib Sadar, Kanungoclaimed that he was associated during the demarcation proceedings.However, his deposition with regard to demarcation cannot be givenmuch weightage. Only the revenue officer, who was entrusted withthe task of carrying out the demarcation and who had actually doneso at the spot could have deposed that he did that as per High CourtRules and Orders and as per instructions of Financial Commissioner,Punjab and testimony of no other person including the officialassisting him can be taken at par with the deposition of such revenueofficer. The report itself indicates several irregularities andillegalities. The demarcation is shown to have been conducted with ameasuring tape when as per rules it should have been conductedusing a Zarib. There could be a possibility of some inaccuracy in thedimensions of the measuring tape, which stands ruled out if thedemarcation is conducted using a Zarib. The report itself indicates several irregularities andillegalities. The demarcation is shown to have been conducted with ameasuring tape when as per rules it should have been conductedusing a Zarib. There could be a possibility of some inaccuracy in thedimensions of the measuring tape, which stands ruled out if thedemarcation is conducted using a Zarib. Therefore, such type ofreport which is not been proper could not be made basis fordecreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The trial Court clearly fell in errorin doing so, which was compounded by Additional District Judge,Panipat by dismissal of the appeal. The basis of the decrees passedby the Courts below is the report of Local Commissioner, which isnot legally sustainable. 8. Therefore, the appeal is accepted, the impugnedjudgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside andthe case is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to appoint anexperienced revenue officer as Local Commissioner, who would visitthe spot after giving due notice to both the parties. He is to carry outthe demarcation as per High Court Rules and Orders as well asinstructions of Financial Commissioner, Punjab and then submitreport in the Court. Both the parties would be given an opportunity tofile objections against the report of Local Commissioner, then he beexamined as a witness in the Court granting liberty to the partiesfiling objections to cross-examine him and thereafter the case bedecided afresh. The fee of the Local Commissioner to be assessed bythe trial Court shall be paid by the plaintiff. 9. Since the case is quite old, the trial Court is directed tocomplete the entire exercise within three months from the date ofreceipt of copy of order. The parties through their counsel aredirected to appear before the trial Court on 20.9.2019. 10. Lower Courts record be returned immediately.