The legitimacy of demarcation and the presence of the petitioner during demarcation were crucial in determining the validity of the demarcation report and subsequent notices.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The petitioner has his land in contiguity to the un-demarcated protected forest land. On a complaint having been instituted before the competent authority, demarcation of the land of the petitioner, in, contiguity to the un-demarcated protected forest land, was ordered. It sequelled the preparation of a demarcation report, comprised, in, Annexure P-5. A perusal of Annexure P-5, discloses the fact of the exercises undertaken by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, in, demarcating the boundaries of the land owned by the petitioner in contiguity to the un-demarcated protected forest land. He had elucidated in it, the fact of participation of the petitioner, as well, as of the officials of the forest department in the exercise, aforesaid. Annexure P-5 records, the concluded fact of the petitioner, to, the extent as detailed, in, Annexure P-5, having encroached upon the land owned by the Forest Department. Annexure P-5, constrained, the issuance of a valid statutory notice upon the petitioner calling upon him to vacate the encroached land owned by the Forest Department. The petitioner contested the notice comprised in Annexure P-10, issued by the competent authority. His contest failed rather, eviction notice comprised in Annexure P-13, was issued against the petitioner. In appeal, preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi rendered the order, comprised, in, Annexure P-15, affirming the findings rendered by the Collector-cum-Divisional forest Officer, Kullu, comprised, in, Annexure P-13.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the findings recorded in Annexure P-5, on, the score that the demarcation exercise, ascertaining or detecting the fact of, his having encroached upon the land of the Forest Department, is, wholly erroneous and unreliable, on the grounds (a) it has been carried out by an unauthorized officer; (b) its having been carried out, in, flagrant violation of the mandate enshrined in H.P. Land Records Manual, qua the manner of carrying out the demarcation of lands, where such lands are respectively owned by private individuals and are in contiguity to the lands owned by the Forest Department, in as much, as, the demarcating officer had omitted to ascertain or fix/determine the permanent points, before proceeding to carry out the demarcation of the land of the petitioner adjoining to and contiguous to the land owned by the Forest Department; and (c) Notice Annexure P-10, is flawed, in as much, as, its bearing an incomplete data, hence, in face thereof, the further proceedings initiated against the petitioner on strength thereto consequently, too, are rendered fallible.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in impeaching and assailing the tenacity of the demarcation report, comprised in Annexure P-5, on the score of it having been carried out by an incompetent and ineligible demarcating officer, in as much, as, it having been carried out by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, who could not render any demarcation, in view of the fact, of, the contemplated demarcation being with respect to private land of the petitioner, in, contiguity to the land owned by the Forest Department, is, rendered wholly rudderless, in, the face of the instructions dated 13th September, 2012 as issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which convey that where the contemplated demarcation is of private land, in contiguity with the land owned by the Forest Department, then the carrying out the demarcation by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade would, not illegitimise rather, would legitimise such demarcation. Further more, the fact of demarcation report, highlighting the presence of the petitioner at the time of carrying out of demarcation, estops the petitioner from contending that, it, is a unilateral demarcation. Besides when the petitioner omitte