JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the sole question which arises for consideration is as to whether the land in question falls within the territorial limits of the Cantonment Board Jutogh or not? The lower appellate authority has answered the same in the negative in terms of the impugned judgment dated 31.3.2009, passed by District Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 25-S/14 of 2005, titled as Jeneshwar Dev Sood vs. Defence Estate Officer, Ambala Circle (Annexure P-5). 2. Certain facts are not in dispute. The suit property came to be purchased by the present respondent in the year 1978. Some time in the month of January, 2003, the authorities of the Cantonment Board found him to have unauthorizedly raised certain construction over the defence land. Consequently the Defence Estate Officer, Ambala Circle, issued a notice to show cause, dated 31.1.2003 (Annexure P-1), which came to be replied by the respondent, denying the factum of alleged unauthorized encroachment and/or construction. 3. Not finding favour with the same, the Defence Estate Officer, vide notice dated 17.4.2003 (Annexure P-3) directed the respondent to remove the construction measuring 50.40 square meters, allegedly raised unauthorizedly by him after encroaching upon their land. Failure on the part of the respondent prompted the authorities to initiate action under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in terms thereof, order of ejectment dated 12.1.2005 (Annexure P-4) came to be passed by the Court of Estate Officer, Ambala Circle, directing the respondent to demolish the construction as under:- “Land measuring 16.80 Sq. Mtrs. x 6.00 Mtr. = 2 50.40 Sq. Mtrs. or 0.01245 acres in GLR Survey No. 27 between boundary pillar No. 3 & 4 Jutogh Cantt as shown in RED colour in the plan attached with this Court’s Notice No. GC-24/87/JH/EO dated 22.01.2004.” 4. Aggrieved thereof, the present respondent preferred a statutory appeal which came to be allowed in terms of the impugned judgment dated 31.3.2009 (Annexure P-5). 5. Significantly, during the pendency of the appeal, on the joint request of the parties, vide order dated 27.11.2008, lower appellate authority appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the spot for ascertaining the factum of unauthorized encroachment. It is a matter of record that report (Ext. 5. Significantly, during the pendency of the appeal, on the joint request of the parties, vide order dated 27.11.2008, lower appellate authority appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the spot for ascertaining the factum of unauthorized encroachment. It is a matter of record that report (Ext. RW-1/A) so submitted by the Local Commissioner came to be set aside with the appointment of a fresh Local Commissioner in terms of order dated 16.12.2008. Crucially an experienced Revenue Officer namely Mr. M.R. Bhardwaj, Tehsildar (U), Shimla, visited the spot to carry out the demarcation for ascertaining the factual position on the spot. It is a matter of record that the said Local Commissioner carried out the demarcation in the presence of the parties and only after considering the revenue record maintained both by the Cantonment Board as also the Revenue Department of the State, found land comprising khasra Nos. 612, 613 and 614 (suit property) to be situated within the Revenue Estate Dhanda and not territorial limits of the Cantonment Board, Jutogh. 6. Record further reveals that objections to the report of the Local Commissioner came to be filed which were subsequently withdrawn and the report of the Local Commissioner dated 28.2.2009 (Ext. A-I) held to be valid. Order dated 27.3.2009 to this effect passed by the lower Appellate Court reads as under:- “At this stage learned counsel for respondent/objector has stated that in view of statement of Sansar Chand Assistant Engineer dated 29.2.2009 made before the Tehsildar (Urban), Shimla at the time of demarcation he does not want to cross-examine Shri M. R. Bhardwaj. In view of the said statement learned counsel for the appellant/non-objector has stated that he does not want to examine the Local Commissioner. Statements of learned counsel for the parties recorded and placed on record. In view of the said statements of the parties, validity of the report of Local Commissioner is not challenged. Hence validity of report of Local Commissioner dated 28.2.2009 is upheld and the same is taken on record as Ext. A-1 and shall be taken into consideration at the time of final arguments. Be put up for final arguments on 28.3.2009.” 7. Consequently, based on the said report, the Appellate Authority found the land occupied by the present respondent not to be that of the Cantonment Board. 8. A-1 and shall be taken into consideration at the time of final arguments. Be put up for final arguments on 28.3.2009.” 7. Consequently, based on the said report, the Appellate Authority found the land occupied by the present respondent not to be that of the Cantonment Board. 8. In the teeth of the stand taken by the petitioner herein, before the Appellate Authority, in these proceedings, at such a belated stage, it cannot be contended that the Authority below erred in not correctly appreciating the material on record, rendering the impugned order to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. 9. Now if the land in question did not fall within the territorial limits of the Cantonment Board, obviously the authorities of the Board had no jurisdiction whatsoever, to initiate action against the respondent. No proceedings under the provisions of the Act could have ever been initiated. The Revenue Officer who executed the local commission, also did not find the present respondent to have encroached upon any public land, whether belonging to the State Government or the Cantonment Board. The said Officer also did not find the respondent to have raised any unauthorized construction. It is in this view of the matter that the defence taken by the respondent herein, of having purchased the land in the year 1974 and thereafter raised construction is absolutely tenable and borne out from the record. In view of the aforesaid discussions, present petition, devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.