The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their parameters, not correcting errors of law or fact.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

The present petition has been preferred laying a challenge to order dated 15.1.2025, whereby an application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 for appointment of a revenue expert as a Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land and to report the extent and nature of encroachment done by the respondent over the suit land has been dismissed.

2. The Petitioner/Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 422/2003, titled & Dalip Singh vs. Ashok Kumar”, seeking fixation of boundaries through demarcation, along with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. Thesuit pertained to the land entered in Khata No. 38, Khatauni No. 71 min, Khasa Nos. 670 min (old) and present Khasra Nos. 1080, 1085, Kita-2, measuring 0-06-50 hectares (Jamai 25 paise) as per the Missal Hakiat Bandobast 1996-97, situated in Tika Bhalu, Mauza and Sub-Tehsil Galore, District Hamirpur, HP. The Plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the land by way of construction of abadi and sought to restrain the Defendant, his agents, servants, and family members from interfering or raising any construction over the suit land until the boundary was redefined. Additionally, the Plaintiff prayed that if the Defendant was found in possession of any portion of the suit land, a decree for possession by way of demolition be granted.

3. Vide Judgment dated 11.03.2010, the suit was partly decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a prohibitory injunction against the Respondent/Defendant, restraining him from causing any interference over the suit land. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Learned First Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 27/2010. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an Execution Petition under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC before the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Nadaun, along with an application under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC for the appointment of a Local Commissioner (Revenue Expert) to demarcate the suit land and ascertain the extent and nature of encroachment. The Respondent contested the application by filing a reply.

4. The sole contention urged on behalf of the petitioner, in the case at hand is that the respondent encroached on his land and has raised a stair case thereon, after passing of the decree in Judgment dated 11.3.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.422/2003.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and documents appended alongwith.

6. It is evident from the record that it was not the case of the petitioner in his appeal that the respondent had raised construction over the part of the suit land. He had only averred that the respondent had removed the marks of land marks fixed on the spot in the demarcation carried out by the revenue officer. It is also evident from the judgment of the trial court that the first demarcation in relation to the suit land was conducted in June, 2000 and the second demarcation was done November 06,2008, i.e during the pendency of the suit in which it was found that the defendant had encroached upon the land of the appellant i.e the suit land to the extent of less than one marla and on the spot, the parties entered into a compromise whereby the boundary in between the parties was fixed and respondent parted with the possession of the suit land. Besides the aforesaid, it has come on record that a demarcation was got conducted on an application filed by the present petitioner on 23.06.2014, the same is alleged to have been prepared in connivance with the revenue field staff and an appeal against the same is pending adjudication before the concerned appellate authority.

7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court has correctly appreciated the law with respect to appointment of a local commissioner. Re-course to a local commissioner to determine the nature and extent of encroachment cannot be claimed as a right under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The burden to establish the factum