Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

1 Petitioner feels aggrieved against order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The case

2(i). Predecessor-in-interest of private respondents presented an application under Section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act for demarcation of land bearing Khasra No.1888, situated at Mohal Jarol, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Sundernagar. One Sh. Shyam Lal, a retired Kanungo, was appointed as Local Commissioner for demarcating the land. It is an admitted position that the Local Commissioner telephonically informed the petitioner through concerned Patwari to appear on the spot on 29.06.2016 for the purpose of demarcation of land. It is also an admitted position that despite intimation, the petitioner did not appear on the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that information through telephonic means was not a permissible mode of communicating the date of demarcation or calling for presence of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner did not appear on the spot. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the petitioner had the information about demarcation to be conducted on the subject land on 29.06.2016 and he chose not to attend the demarcation.

2(ii). Local Commissioner on 29.06.2016, demarcated the land bearing Khasra Nos.1888/1 & 1888/2, as Khasra No.1888 had been divided in two parts during partition proceedings. During demarcation, predecessor-in-interest of private respondents and some other persons were reported to be present on the spot. The Local Commissioner furnished his demarcation report to the Assistant Collector First Grade.

2(iii). Petitioner, at this stage, filed objections to the demarcation report. The Assistant Collector First Grade, after hearing the petitioner, rejected his objections on 30.05.2017 and accepted the demarcation report.

2(iv). Petitioner assailed the order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Sundernagar before the Collector. In the interest of justice and at the joint request of parties, the Collector directed the Assistant Collector Second Grade (Naib Tehsildar), Dehar to again demarcate the land on the spot. The Assistant Collector Second Grade demarcated the land on 23.10.2018 in presence of petitioner and also predecessor-in-interest of private respondents. Prior to demarcation, the statements of petitioner, predecessor-in-interest of private respondents as also some other local persons present on the spot were recorded.

2(v). Petitioner did not accept the demarcation carried out by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Dehar on 23.10.2018. The demarcation report was submitted by the Assistant Collector Second Grade to the Collector, i.e. before the Court where petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 30.05.2017 was pending.

2(vi). On receipt of second demarcation report, i.e. conducted by the Assistant Collector Second Grade on 23.10.2018, the petitioner filed his objections against the same. On 29.06.2019, the petitioner again requested for conducting spot inspection/demarcation. The case file reflects that the Collector benevolently accepted petitioner’s this request also. He directed the Field Kanungo concerned to visit the spot on 03.07.2019. The Field Kanungo visited the spot on the given date, but the petitioner did not appear on spot. To a query of the Court as to why the petitioner chose not to appear on the spot on 03.07.2019, i.e. the date given by the Collector, no answer could be furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner. The case file records that the Field Kanungo on 03.07.2019, once again verified the spot position and found the boundary marks fixed by