Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3857
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, Bipin Chander Negi, J
Lekh Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
CMP(M) No.1004 of 2026|LPA No.388 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.D. Nanda, Sandeep C Chauhan
For the Respondents: Rakesh Dhaulta
Concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding valid land demarcation, where parties provided contemporaneous consent and permanent points were duly identified, cannot be interfered with in a Letters Patent Appeal unless there is a manifest error.
Headnote:The matter involves the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2023, specifically concerning the validity of a land demarcation. A party challenged a demarcation report, alleging that necessary permanent points were not fixed by the Revenue Officer. However, evidence showed the party had initially accepted the demarcation on 31.05.2018, and objections were only raised later as an afterthought. The lower Revenue Authorities and a Single Judge had consistently held that the demarcation was conducted correctly using the triangulation/square system with identified points A, B, and C. The primary issue was whether the demarcation conducted by the Naib Tehsildar followed the mandatory instructions and if the failure to fix three permanent points invalidated the report. The court reasoned that since the parties had signed statements expressing consent to the fixed points on the spot, and multiple revenue authorities had concurrently found that points A, B, and C were accurately marked in the Mussavi, there was no basis to interfere with the findings. Resultantly, the present i appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
Whether approved for reporting?1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
(Oral)
CMP(M) No.1004 of 2026
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 03 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed off accordingly.
LPA No.388 of 2026
Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is sought to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.6190 of 2024, titled as Lekh Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, dated 21.04.2026.
In sum and substance, the learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner had accepted the demarcation report, which was prepared on 31.05.2018. The action had been taken in the presence of the petitioner, and there was no objection. It was only on 17.01.2019 that the objections were filed as the demarcation report was rearlier conducted by the Naib Tehsildar on 31.05.2018. Thus, the objections filed before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur were dismissed on 14.10.2019 and upheld by the Collector, Tehsil Ghumarwin, order on 20.04.2021 and the Divisional Commissioner, exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla having sustained the order on 16.01.2024, led the learned Single Judge not to intefere in the orders.
The learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the petitioner's factual objections, which claimed that three pucca points had not been fixed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, had already been discussed by the three lower Revenue Authorities and held against the petitioner/appellant. Accordingly, it was recorded that the joint corner of Khasra Nos. 18, 19, and 20 was marked as point 'A', the joint corner of Khasra Nos. 18, 19, and 16 was marked as point 'B' and the joint corner of Khasra Nos. 24, 25, and 16 was marked as p.oint 'C' in the Mussavi used for conducting the demarcation on the spot. Therefore, the objections as such were justly turned down correctly.
While referring to the statement of the petitioner recorded on 31.05.2018,r it was noticed that he had expressed his agreement with the demarcation as carried out on the same day by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur.
Reliance was placed upon the relevant provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act by way of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2023 that while carrying out the demarcation, reference is to be made to the survey-marks to be erected on any boundary already detemined by, or by order of any Court, Revenue Officer or Forest Settlement Officer, or any such Officer had to be done by triangulation system or square system or electronic total station system of measurement etc., as the case may be. In such circumstancs, the concurrent findings as such having been recorded, were upheld.
A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that firstly, the Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, while dismissing the appeal o.n 14.10.2019 (Annexure P-10), recorded that the report of the Naib Tehsildar shows that the pacca bannas had been traced by the Naib Tehsildar Ghumarwin to conduct the demarcation on the spot. The relevant portion reads as under:-
“The rerspondents have submitted their objections in writing on dated 17-1-2019. The respondents have submitted objection that the demarcation given by Naib Tehsildar Ghumarwin is against the standing oinstructions issued by Financial Commissioner (Revenue) since the pacca bannas have not been traced by the Naid Tehsildar Ghumarwin. But from the perusal of the report of the Naib Tehsildar, pacca bannas have been traced by the Naib Tehsildar Ghumarwin to conduct the demarcation on the spot. The pacca points A, B and C have been traced on the spot. The joint corn
