GULZARI LAL Vs. CHETU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question in this appeal is whether the defendant has encroached upon the land of the plaintiff while constructing his house.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit alleging that he was owner of khasra No. 623 measuring 7-18 bighas and out of this land the defendant had encroached upon an area of 10 biswansis reflected as khasra No. 623/1. THE learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the demarcation report proved by PW-3 could not be relied upon since it was not a demarcation report, but only a tatima and the Patwari PW-3 had stated that no proper tatima can be made without proper demarcation being carried out. THE learned trial Court framed an additional issue and on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant had in fact encroached upon this land and had constructed a house thereupon. THE land in question is only 10 biswansi which works out to approximately 22 ? square yards. THE land in question is stated to be in an agricultural area where even a slight difference in the musabi or map can bring out a change of about 10 biswansi in the total area of 7 bighas 18 biswas. However, I do not intend to disturb the findings given by the learned lower Appellate Court that the defendant had encroached upon the land of the plaintiff.

(3.) I find that the parties are poor. The value of the land is low. The area in question is a rural area. Assuming that the cost of land is about Rs. 2 lacs per bigha, it would work out to Rs. 10,000/- per biswa or Rs. 5,000/- for 10 biswansis. Even if some penalty is imposed upon the defendant for having encroached upon the land, at best the total value can be assessed at Rs. 10,000/- and I am assessing the value as on date and not taking the value of the land when the same was actually encroached upon.