SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(HP) 180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J.
Shri Shashi Pal. - Petitioner
Versus
Shri Kuldeep. - Respondent
CMPMO No. 411 of 2017
Decided On : 11-04-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.

Unless the previous demarcation report is set aside, no fresh demarcation of the land can be ordered.

Headnote:

demarcation - land dispute - The court upheld the dismissal of an application for demarcation of land, stating that unless the previous demarcation report is set aside, no fresh demarcation can be ordered. The court relied on legal precedents and held that the demarcation report already on record cannot be disregarded, and any challenge to its validity should be addressed during further proceedings in the suit.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent, alleging interference in the suit land. The petitioner sought appointment of a local commissioner for demarcation of the land, claiming that the respondent had encroached upon the land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dismissal of the application for demarcation was legally sustainable, as the previous demarcation report was acceptable to the petitioner and could not be disregarded without proper legal challenge. The court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the petition, but allowed the petitioner to approach the trial court for appointment of a local commissioner in changed circumstances.

Issues: The main issue was whether a fresh demarcation of the land could be ordered when the previous demarcation report was already on record and acceptable to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless the previous demarcation report is set aside by appointing another revenue official, no fresh demarcation can be ordered. It relied on legal precedents to support this conclusion and emphasized that any challenge to the validity of the demarcation report should be addressed during further proceedings in the suit.

Final Decision: The court upheld the dismissal of the application for demarcation, but allowed the petitioner to approach the trial court for appointment of a local commissioner in changed circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Order dated 10.6.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II, Dharmashala is under challenge in this petition. As a matter of fact, learned trial Court has dismissed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff with a prayer to appoint local commissioner for demarcation of the land entered in Khata No. 24, Khatauni No. 51, Khasra No. 1843/298 situate in Mohal Gabli Dar, Mauza Ghaniyara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’ in short) vide the order under challenge in this petition.

2. The suit has been filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from causing interference in the suit land in any manner whatsoever. The respondent-defendant in the written statement has denied the claim of the plaintiff being wrong. He has also placed on record the report qua the demarcation conducted on 20.12.2010 and on the basis thereof it is claimed that he has nothing to do with the suit land nor has caused any interference therein. Replication also stands filed. On the completion of the pleadings, issues were framed and the plaintiff evidence has also been recorded partly. The suit presently is at the stage of recording plaintiff’s remaining evidence. It is at this stage the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC came to be filed for appointment of local commissioner on the grounds, inter alia, that the respondent-defendant has made encroachment upon the suit land and hence is in unauthorized and illegal possession thereof.

3. The application was, however, resisted and contested on the grounds, inter-alia, that the report qua the demarcation of the land conducted previously on 20.12.2010 is already produced on record and until and unless the said report is quashed and set aside by the competent Authority, no fresh demarcation of the land can be ordered.

4. Admittedly, the suit land was demarcated on 20.12.2010 and the report has been placed on record by the defendant. There is again no controversy so as to the demarcation so conducted was even acceptable to the plaintiff also. However, now he claims that the demarcation so conducted was not in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. It is for this reason the plaintiff has filed an application under Section 107 of the Land Revenue Act registered as case No. 137/12 before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dharamshala. The local commissioner has been appointed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to conduct the demarcation, who has submitted his report that there being difference of Karukans in Aks Musabi and Aks Momi, it is not possible to demarcate the land on the spot. Acting on the report so submitted by the local commissioner, the Assistant Collector vide order dated 6.3.2012 has observed that in view of such difference in Karukans the matter need to be examined and necessary correction ordered by the competent court. These documents produced during the course of arguments have been perused and returned to learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff after perusal.

5. Learned Counsel submits that demarcation report already placed on record by the defendant cannot be relied upon being contrary to the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. Such submissions, however, are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of H.P. vs. Mangat Ram, AIR 1995 SC 665 and Radha Swami Satsang Veas vs. State of H.P. ILR 1984 HP 317 which has been considered by learned trial Judge while arriving at a conclusion that unless and until the demarcation conducted earlier is not set aside by appointing another revenue official, no fresh demarcation can be ordered. Whether the demarcation report already on record is contrary to the instructions or the law applicable has to be seen by learned trial Court at an appropriate stage during the course of further proceedings in the suit. Therefore, at th




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top