2025:HHC:39121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Civil Revision No. 67 of 2020 Decided on: 11.11.2025 ____________________________________________________ Banarsi Dass through LRs. ……….. petitioners Versus Baldev Singh (deceased) through LRs and others.

……….respondents _________________________________f___________________

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, uAdvocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 2(a) to 2(d).

Respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d) and 3(a) to 3(c) proceeded against ex h parte, vide order dated

22.09.2021.

____________________________________________________

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral)

The bone of contention in the case at hand is an encroachment of 5 ½ marlas on land comprised in Khatoni No. 191 min, Khasra No. 218 as per Jamabandi for the year 1983-84, out of total land measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas, situated in village Ladoli, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’).

2. The suit in the case at hand was filed by the respondents, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the present petitioners/judgment debtors from

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

interfering in the suit land and raising any construction thereupon. In the alternative, it had been prayed that if in case, the present petitioners/judgment debtors succeed in raising any construction during the pendency of the suit on the suit landH, then a decree for mandatory injunction for demolition and removal of the same be passed.

3. The suit initially was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferretd against the same was allowed by the First Appellate Court. Against the same, an appeal and cross- objections were preferred before the High Court. Both had been dismissed.

4. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the original parties to the lis had died and their legal representatives had been brought on record. Against the same, no further proceedings were taken beyond the High Court and the judgment passed by the High Court attained finality. Subsequent thereto, execution petition was preferred by the present respondents/Decree Holders, in which objections had been filed.

5. The contention of the petitioners/judgment debtors is that one of the heirs of the original plaintiff, i.e., Baldev Singh has sold his right in the suit land to the present petitioners/judgment debtors, thereby improving the status of the petitioners/judgment debtors.

6. The sale in the case at hand is dated 26.08.2010. The sale deed is appended along with the execution record at page No. 247. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the same had been made by Shiv Darshan, S/OH late Sh. Baldev, Decree Holder, in favour of petitioner/judgment debtor Banarasi Dass and his legal heirs. From a perusal of the sale deed placed at page No. 247 of the paper book, it is evident that the sale pertains to Khasra Nos. 394, t962 and is specifically stated to be with respect to 1/34^th share of Shiv Darshan, who is one of the legal heirs of Baldev Singh. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is the contention of the petitioner/judgment debtor that only symbolic possession needs to be delivered in the case at hand and therefore, the impugned judgment needs to be set-aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/Decree Holders has brought the attention of this Court to the revenue record appended along with the execution petition at page No. 243. Specifically attention has been drawn to the reverse side of the said document, wherefrom it is evident that Khasra No. 218 has subsequently been renumbered as Khasra Nos. 961, 962 and 963 and this has been shown in the possession of Sant Ram, i.e., the present respondent No. 2, who is now represented through h