Faulty Demarcation Cannot Sustain Decree for Possession: P&H High Court Remands Matter for Fresh Measurement
Case Name: Ranjit Singh and another v. Nagor Singh
Date of Judgment: 27.04.2026
Citation: RSA-4538-2017
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a decree for possession based solely on a defective demarcation report is unsustainable. Where mandatory requirements such as identification of three pucca points and proper recording of proceedings are not complied with, the demarcation loses evidentiary value. The Court set aside the appellate decree and remanded the matter for fresh demarcation in accordance with law.
Summary: The plaintiff instituted a suit for possession claiming ownership over land measuring 51 kanals, alleging forcible dispossession by the defendants in 2009. The claim was primarily founded on a demarcation conducted in 2012, which purportedly showed illegal possession by the defendants.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the demarcation report was unreliable due to procedural defects. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this finding and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, placing reliance on the same demarcation report.
Aggrieved, the defendants approached the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal, contending that the demarcation was not conducted in accordance with settled legal requirements, particularly the absence of three pucca points and lack of proper documentation.
The High Court, upon examining the record, found serious inconsistencies. The Kanungo admitted in cross-examination that although three pucca points were allegedly used, the report mentioned only one. Further, the report falsely recorded that all parties had signed it, whereas the defendant had not signed despite being present. Additionally, there was no reliable evidence regarding possession of the gair mumkin pahi.
The Court observed that the demarcation report formed the sole basis of the plaintiff’s case, and such glaring defects rendered it unreliable. It also noted that the First Appellate Court had ignored material discrepancies and the well-reasoned findings of the Trial Court, instead proceeding on conjectures.
Decision: The High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. However, instead of dismissing the suit outright, the Court remanded the matter to the District Court with directions to conduct a fresh demarcation strictly in accordance with law. The decision reflects a balanced approach, ensuring procedural compliance while preserving the substantive rights of the parties to have the dispute adjudicated on a proper factual foundation.