Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1883 (PNJ)

Savita v. Deputy Commissioner, Rewari

2023-05-26

KULDEEP TIWARI, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2023
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant petition is directed against the concurrently made verdicts of eviction, respectively made by the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari dated 9.9.2013 (Annexure P-10), and, by the learned Collector, Rewari dated 28.4.2015 (Annexure P-12), whereby the alleged encroachment, made by the petitioners herein, upon gair mumkin rasta enclosed in khasra No. 145, thus owned by the Gram Panchayat concerned, rather became declared to be encroached, upon by the petitioners herein. 2. In making the above concurrent verdicts of eviction against the petitioners herein, both the authorities below relied upon the demarcation report, prepared by the revenue officer concerned. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the reliance, as made by both the authorities below, upon the report of the demarcating officer concerned, rather is completely inapt. 3. The report of the demarcating officer was extremely relevant, as in the event of its becoming validly drawn, besides in the event of its becoming proven to be drawn strictly in terms of the relevant rules and instructions, thereby reliance on such a demarcation report, was well founded. Moreover, thus the concurrently made verdicts of eviction against the petitioners could also be said to be well informed, otherwise not. Reasons for rejecting the demarcation report 4. The petitioners herein had raised objections to the report of the demarcating officer. The said objections were related to the demarcating officer, in his preparing the demarcation report, rather violating the guidelines of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The said objections also related to the demarcating officer hence carrying an ex parte demarcation of the relevant site. Another important objection, which was raised by the petitioners herein against the drawing of the demarcation report, by the revenue officer concerned, related to the inability of the demarcating officer concerned, to as required by law, ascertain the fixed points from the masawi, and, thereafter to relay them onto the ground, and, subsequently his proceeding to make the demarcation of the encroached upon sites. 5. Be that as it may, after the demarcating officer concerned, stepping into the witness box, and, his then in his examination-in-chief, thus testifying, that he had drawn the demarcation report, in terms of relevant rules and instructions. 5. Be that as it may, after the demarcating officer concerned, stepping into the witness box, and, his then in his examination-in-chief, thus testifying, that he had drawn the demarcation report, in terms of relevant rules and instructions. However, yet when he faced the ordeal of a rigorous cross-examination, he admitted that he had not caused service upon respondents No. 5 and 6, nor also he obtained the apposite signatures on the list of the appearing litigants before him. Therefore, but obviously, insofar as the above petitioners are concerned, the demarcation report was drawn ex parte against them. Furthermore, he has also admitted, that his signatures are not there on the list of presences. As such, it appears that the author of the demarcation report, who stepped into the witness box as CW-1, did not as a matter of fact, carry the relevant demarcation. Therefore, obviously no reliance was amenable to be placed, upon his demarcation report, as rather became untenably placed thereons, thus by both the statutory authorities below. 6. In addition, he has also admitted to be correct a suggestion, as became meted to him during his cross-examination, that after completing the measurement of eastern side 27 karam and rasta khasra No. 145 and gosa and 2 karam, when western side of khasra No. 86 was measured, then the rasta of inside residential area gets closed. Furthermore, he has also admitted the further suggestion to be correct, relating to upon measurement, the side of khasra No. 86, does not get completed, rather 27 karam side of khasra No. 86 becomes completed after covering the entire rasta adjacent thereto. The effect of the above admissions, is that, but obviously no valid demarcation was made of the relevant sites, thus from the relevant masawi, nor therefrom became borrowed the relevant fixed point nor such fixed points, as became borrowed from the masawi became relayed onto the ground, thus by the demarcating officer concerned. In consequence, the reliance, as placed upon such an infirm demarcation report, by both the statutory authorities below, was an inapt reliance. Resultantly, interference is required to be made with the impugned orders (supra). Final order 7. Consequently, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. In consequence, the reliance, as placed upon such an infirm demarcation report, by both the statutory authorities below, was an inapt reliance. Resultantly, interference is required to be made with the impugned orders (supra). Final order 7. Consequently, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Nonetheless, for ensuring that justice is done to the litigants concerned, the lis is remanded to the learned Assistant Collector concerned, to after his restoring the lis to its original number, his eliciting a fresh valid demarcation report from the demarcating officer concerned. Subsequently, the said demarcation report shall be ensured to be tendered into evidence, besides the makings thereons a valid exhibition mark thus shall also be ensured. Naturally an opportunity to cross-examine the demarcating officer concerned, shall be assigned to the litigants concerned, who become affected by the said demarcation report. The decision on the remanded lis, be made by the remandee Court, positively within six months from today, but after hearing all the affected persons concerned. 8. With the afore observations, the instant petition is disposed of. 9. The pending application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of. Order accordingly.