Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 141 (HP)

MADHUTHAPA v. J. P. CHATRATH

2005-05-17

A.R.BASU

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Solan exercising the powers of Commissioner whereby he had upheld the orders of the Collector Solan dated 19.2.2001. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner preferred an application before the Collector Distt. Solan for appointment of local Commissioner to demarcate the land comprised in Khasra No. 395,390, 394 and 392/2 situated in revenue village Thodo Tehsil and Distt. Solan on 3.7.1996. The Distt. Collector appointed Tehsildar Solan as a Local Commissioner who demarcated the spot and submitted his report on 23.8.1996. The parties did not agree to the demarcation and thereafter the Collector directed the Tehsildar Solan to demarcate the spot afresh. Due to his inability, the Tehsildar Solan returned the case file to the Collector who appointed the Assistant Commissioner Parwanoo as the Local Commissioner. This Local Commissioner also did not demarcate the land and finally the Tehsildar Kasauli demarcated the same as a Local Commissioner. The report of the Tehsildar Kasauli was accepted by the Collector on 19.2.2001. It is pertinent to mention that the Tehsildar Solan, while demarcating the land had found an encroachment of 61 Sq. Mtr. by the present respondent upon the land of the petitioner while the Tehsildar Kasauli had later found an encroachment of 34 Sq. Mtr. The present petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner on the grounds that the Tehsildar Kasauli had not followed with the instructions for carrying out demarcation as issued by the Financial Commissioner Himachal Pradesh. She further prayed for appointment of a fresh Local Commissioner to demarcate the land. The learned Commissioner decided the same on 18.12.2000 holding that the demarcation given by the Tehsildar Kasauli in presence of both the parties was correct and there was no need for a fresh demarcation of the area. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Commissioner dated 18.12.2001, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner. 4. The record of the courts below was summoned and perused. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties were heard. Sh. Mohinder Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the demarcation given by the Local Commissioner was not in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner Himachal Pradesh. 4. The record of the courts below was summoned and perused. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties were heard. Sh. Mohinder Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the demarcation given by the Local Commissioner was not in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner Himachal Pradesh. According to him the Local Commissioner did not demarcate the land form three permanent points. He also contended that the land was demarcated from imaginary points not given on the musavi. He prayed that as the demarcation was not given in accordance with the procedure, the same is liable to be set-aside. He further prayed that demarcation may be given afresh. 5. Sh. Suneet Goel, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the land had been demarcated twice by Local Commissioners appointed by the Collector Solan. He contended that the learned Senior Sub-Judge Solan held in an order dated 21.6.2001 that the present respondent had admitted an encroachment of 22 Sq. Mtr. which was initially found in demarcation carried out at the instance of one Sh. Khem Chand who was a defendant along with the present petitioner in the Civil suit before the learned Senior Sub-Judge though the encroachment found by the kanungo when he had demarcated the land was 58 sq. mts. whereas the Local Commissioners found it to be 61 sq. mts. and 34 sq. mts. Respectively. 6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the entire record, I am of the view that the land has been demarcated by the Local Commissioner at the behest of the petitioner in accordance with the settled procedure in this regard. The objection of the petitioner that the demarcation has not been carried out in accordance with the instructions of the Financial Commissioner Himachal Pradesh has been deliberated upon by the learned Collector as well as the learned Commissioner who have dismissed the same after due consideration. The petitioner has not brought forth any convincing argument to prove that the authority below have either not exercised the jurisdiction vested in them under law or have exceeded their jurisdiction in any manner. He has also not been able to convince this court of any cogent facts which may warrant re-demarcation of the land in dispute. The petitioner has not brought forth any convincing argument to prove that the authority below have either not exercised the jurisdiction vested in them under law or have exceeded their jurisdiction in any manner. He has also not been able to convince this court of any cogent facts which may warrant re-demarcation of the land in dispute. The petitioner appears to be not satisfied with the demarcation made in the presence of the parties more than once, not even with the decision of the civil court. 7. Interest republican ut sit finis litium. 8. I therefore decline to interfere. The revising petition is dismissed. 9. Announced in the open court today on 17th May, 2005. 10. The record of the lower courts be returned and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.