JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Through, the instant petition, the writ petitioner seeks quashing of orders, respectively borne in Annexure P-4, and, in Annexure P-6, whereunder, the authorities concerned, while exercising the powers, under, the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Public Premises & Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, hence ordered the eviction of the petitioner, from, the suit property/land. 2. The writ petitioner, would succeed in establishing (i) qua the afore impugned orders being ingrained with a vice of gross fallacy, (ii) upon, the relevant records making clear upsurgings qua in the apt proceedings drawn by the authorities concerned, the latter infracting, the, principles of natural justice, (iii) infraction whereof would arise, from, the proven factum, that, in the apt proceedings launched against him, his participation remaining rather unelicited, through rendition, of, an order for begetting effectuation, of, service upon him nor the apposite summons being personally served upon him. A perusal of the order sheets appended with the instant writ petition, rather discloses, that, after effectuation of service of summons, upon, the petitioner herein, his engaging counsel, and, the counsel engaged by him, also making appearances before the authorities concerned. Consequently, the afore reared ground, rather stands fully negatived. 3. Be that as it may, the counsel for the petitioner contended with much vigour before this Court, (i) that the demarcation of the suit property, as conducted, by the demarcating officer concerned, being ingrained with a vice of fallibility, given, the apt demarcation proceedings being conducted, in, the absence of writ petitioner. However, the aforesaid ground is not available, for propagation, by the writ petitioner, given a reading of the orders pronounced, on 25.3.2010, hence making a clear display, (ii) that the revenue officer concerned, rather striving, to ensure the presence of the writ petitioner, at the time of holding, of, demarcation of the suit property, yet the petitioner rather choosing to deliberately remained absent. The afore echoing, occurring, in the orders pronounced, on 25.03.2010, orders whereof stand borne in Annexure P-6, has not been demonstrated to be suffering from any falsity. The afore echoing, occurring, in the orders pronounced, on 25.03.2010, orders whereof stand borne in Annexure P-6, has not been demonstrated to be suffering from any falsity. Even otherwise, the afore ground when stands coagulated, with, the further factum qua the writ petitioner while rendering a statement, on 25.09.2007, his rather acquiescing qua his encroaching, upon, the government land, statement whereof finds reflection, in, the order borne, in Annexure P-6, (iii) does rip apart the tenacity, if any, of the espousal reared by the petitioner, that for any want of his presence, at the time of demarcation, of, the suit property, being conducted hence, no reliance being placeable thereon, (iv) contrarily, for reiteration, the afore acquiescence of the petitioner, occurring in his statement rendered on 25.09.2007, does render him, barred to seek any relief from this Court, for, quashing, the, impugned annexures. 4. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The orders impugned before this Court are affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of.