JUDGMENT S. S Sidhu, IAS —Shri Samku Ram has filed this revision petition under section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act against the order dated 4-10-1983 of the Commissioner, Shimla Division. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kalpa vide his order dated nil ordered the ejectment of Shri Samku Ram, petitioner, from the land measuring 0-2 biswas, comprised in Khasra No M8/i, situated in Chak Kothi. Feeling aggrieved by the order of ejectment, Shri Samku Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla Division, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 4-10-1983. The present revision petition has been filed against the orders of tbe Revenue Officers below. 3. We have gone through the record of the case and have also heard the arguments advanced by Shri Harsh Khanna, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioner and Shri, Ravinder Sharma, District Attorney (Revenue) who appeared on behalf of the State. The petitioner has taken the ground that the and. in question, was a part of Shamlat land of Chak Kothi and the petitioner being one of the owners in the revenue estate is entitled to occupy a separate portion of Shamlat land as a matter of right The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner had exercised this right by constructing a house upon the land, in question Since the old house was in dilapidated condition, the same was built by the petitioner about 9-10 years ago before filing an appeal before the Commissioner, .Shimla Division It is on record that the petitioner had requested for regularisation of the encroachment but his request had been turned down s nee his possession was not proved to be an old one The Assistant Collector. 1st Grade, ordered the ejectment under section 163 of the Hemachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and the same had been upheld by the learned Divisional Commissioner as well. 4. This Court had asked the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur to personally visit the spot in the presence of the petitioner and give his report as to whether this piece of land measuring 0-2 biswas can be granted o the petitioner in view of the fact that the house is standing on it or the encroachment can be regularised under the new Encroachment Policy The Deputy Commissioner. Kinnaur, has sent his report vide his letter No KNR-15-13 (Poshi)/4220 dated 11-6-1992. The leaded Deputy Com-missioner has reported that the petitioner in his statement recorded in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, had stated that the possession/ encroachment upon the said land was continuously from his fore-father* and there was a "Dogri" which later on collapsed and repaired by him some 25/26 years ago. But from the perusal of the order of the Assistant Collector. 1st Grade, it revealed that the petitioner had failed to establish that he was in possession of the said piece of land on or before 30-6 1970/ 76. The learned Deputy Commissioner stated that as per revenue record the classification of the land is Gair Mumkin Kuhl with possession of village right holders. As such, this case did not come in the ambit of new Encroachment Policy as the encroachment on places of common use such as roads/kuhls were not be regularised as per provisions of the Encroachment Policy circulated on 20-8-.987. It is relevant to mention that the regulansation of encroachment policy stands suspended at the moment However, the fact remains that the land encroached upon by the petitioner is recorded as Gair Mumkin Kuhi. This would cause obstruction for widening of the path and kuhl. It has also been reported by he learned Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner is owner of 0 60 ^ hectares of land and having residential house in the village. It has also been reported that the petitioner has constructed a house at Peo consisting of 12 rooms and rented out to others. consisting 5. In view of the report given by the learned Deputy Commissioner Kinnaur. we have no reason to interfere with the orders passed by S Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the learned Divisional Commissioner Shimla Division. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. To be communicated. Revision dismissed. -