JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J —Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 24.5.2017 (Annexure P-13) , passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, whereby learned Sub Divisional Officer while arriving at conclusion that petitioner( for short ''Company'') , has contravened the provisions contained in the agreement, directed it to deposit lump-sum of Rs. 3,00, 000/- in lieu of the damage occurred to the land and foot path leading to the house of respondent No.2, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside and quash the impugned order dated 24.5.2017, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) , Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Necessary facts, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner-company with a view to construct water channel to its power house purchased six bighas of land from respondent No.2 by way of sale deed (Annexure P-4) . The petitioner-company paid an amount of Rs. 36, 000/- on account of sale consideration in the year, 2004, whereafter it constructed water channel over the land purchased by it leading to its power house. The project came to be commissioned in the year, 2008 and during this period, respondent never raised any objection with regard to construction of water channel over his land. It also emerge from the record that in terms of settlement arrived inter se parties at the time of construction of water channel, respondent No.2 was provided employment by the petitioner-Company in its project, where he continued to work till 13.7.2008. In the year, 2012 i.e. 6.6.2012, respondent No.2 (since deceased) filed an application to the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) Chamba, alleging therein that the petitioner-company has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement arrived inter se them. Respondent No.2 further alleged that petitioner-company while constructing the water channel had agreed to provide employment to his family member, but despite that his services were terminated. Respondent No.2 further alleged that petitioner-company raised the height of canal, as a consequence of which, it has become difficult for all the family members and cattle''s to cross the water channel for grazing purpose or to move downwards or upwards for the collection of grass, fuel and drinking water for living purpose. Respondent No.2 further alleged that petitioner-company raised the height of canal, as a consequence of which, it has become difficult for all the family members and cattle''s to cross the water channel for grazing purpose or to move downwards or upwards for the collection of grass, fuel and drinking water for living purpose. Learned Sub Divisional Officer, vide impugned order dated 24.5.2017 arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner-company contravened the terms and conditions contained in the agreement and despite repeated requests failed to redress the grievances of the respondents and as such, directed the petitioner-company to deposit lump-sum of Rs. 3,00, 000/- on account of the damages occurred to the land and foot path leading to the house of the applicant. 3. Mr. K.D.Shreedhar, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by the Mr. Sameer Thakur, Advocate, representing the petitioner-company, while inviting attention of this Court to the sale deed ( Annexure P-4) , contended that the land used for water channel was purchased by the petitioner-company by paying sale consideration of Rs. 36, 000/. He further invited attention of this Court to agreement (Annexure P-6) , dated 31st January, 2007, to demonstrate that over and above Rs. 36, 000/- paid at the time of execution of sale deed, petitioner-company also paid an amount of Rs. 68, 000/- by way of cheque as compensation to the respondent No.2 on account of the damage caused to his crops and debris thrown on the land of the respondents. He further contended that it is not in dispute that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was given employment in the project, which he left on his own in the year, 2008 at the time of commissioning of the project. Mr. Shreedhar, while referring to the impugned order, strenuously argued that Sub Divisional Officer had no power, whatsoever to entertain the complaint made by respondent No.2 with regard to violation of the terms and conditions contained in the agreement arrived inter se the parties. He further stated that Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) , Chamba, had no authority to impose damage to the tune of Rs. 3,00, 000/- on account of damages, if any, caused to the land and foot path leading to the house of the respondents. while making this Court to travel through the impugned order, Mr. He further stated that Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) , Chamba, had no authority to impose damage to the tune of Rs. 3,00, 000/- on account of damages, if any, caused to the land and foot path leading to the house of the respondents. while making this Court to travel through the impugned order, Mr. Shreedhar, made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that Sub Divisional Officer, failed to assess the damage, if any, caused to the respondents before imposition of penalty and as such, impugned order being without any authority and jurisdiction is not sustainable in the eyes of law. While inviting attention of this Court to the documents placed on record, Mr. Shreedhar, also contended that over and above the amount, as stated above, petitioner company accepted the request of the respondents and spent huge amount to construct passage etc., to enable the respondents to visit their lands adjoining to the water channel and as such, findings returned by the learned Sub Divisional Officer to the contrary, deserves to be quashed and setaside. 4. Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel representing respondents No.2 to 9, supported the impugned order and stated that since the petitioner-company raised the height of water channel constructed over his land, learned SDM, rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00, 000/- on account of the inconvenience caused to the respondents and other family members. Mr. Thakur, after having perused the material adduced on record by the petitioner-company was unable to dispute that respondents received an amount of Rs. 68, 000/- over and above Rs. 36, 000/- received by them on account of sale consideration. He further admitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was provided employment, but he stated that his services were terminated illegally. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the petitioner-company constructed water channel over the land purchased by it from the respondents. It is also apparent from the record that respondent not only received sale consideration of Rs.36, 000/-, but he also received an amount of Rs. 68, 000/- on account of the damages caused to the crop and muck/debris allegedly thrown by the petitioner-company at the time of construction of water channel. It is also apparent from the record that respondent not only received sale consideration of Rs.36, 000/-, but he also received an amount of Rs. 68, 000/- on account of the damages caused to the crop and muck/debris allegedly thrown by the petitioner-company at the time of construction of water channel. Material available on record further suggest that the petitioner- company with a view to redress the grievances of the respondents with regard to height of water channel also constructed overhead passage over the canal to enable the families of the respondents to cross the same without any inconvenience. 6. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds substantial force in the arguments of learned counsel representing the petitioner-company that ''SDM'' had no authority, whatsoever to entertain the application made by the respondent with regard to violation, if any, of the terms and conditions contained in the agreement arrived inter se the parties. Once the land allegedly used by the petitioner-company for the construction of water channel was purchased by way of sale deed, it is not understood how ''SDM'' entertained the application and arrived at a conclusion that petitioner-company violated the terms and conditions of the agreement arrived inter se petitioner-company and the respondents. It is not the case of the parties that petitionercompany at the time of setting up of its project acquired land through State of Himachal Pradesh and in this regard petitionercompany arrived at some Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Himachal Pradesh, undertaking therein to provide certain facilities to the local residents of the area, more particularly, persons whose land came to be acquired for the construction of project. 7. In the case at hand, as has been discussed hereinabove, land of the respondent was purchased by the petitioner-company by paying sale consideration. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-company in terms of the agreement arrived inter se it and the respondents also provided employment to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, who remained on the rolls of the petitioner company till commissioning of the project in the year, 2008. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-company in terms of the agreement arrived inter se it and the respondents also provided employment to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, who remained on the rolls of the petitioner company till commissioning of the project in the year, 2008. Whether services of respondent were terminated or not is a pure question of fact and as such dispute with regard to the illegal termination of the respondent from the services could not be looked into by the ''SDM'' in the proceedings initiated at the behest of respondent, rather respondents being aggrieved with his illegal termination, if any, ought to have filed appropriate proceedings in the appropriate forum, but definitely not before the ''SDM''. Merely relying upon the averments/ allegations contained in the application, SDM came to the conclusion that the damage has been caused to the respondent and held petitioner liable to pay damages. There is nothing on record, from where it can be inferred that Sub Divisional Collector before arriving at aforesaid conclusion recorded in the impugned order, had held any inquiry on the spot associating the parties. Similarly, it is not understood that under what provisions learned ''SDM/ Sub Divisional Collector'' had an authority to assess the damage and then award penalty of Rs. 3,00, 000/- in favour of the respondents. Bare perusal of the impugned order, passed by the learned ''SDM'' suggests that he merely relying upon the averments/ allegations contained in the application proceeded to conclude that damage has been caused to the respondents and held petitioner-company liable to pay damages. 8. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this court sees valid reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned ''SDM'', who had no authority to impose any penalty, as has been discussed above, and as such, impugned order passed without jurisdiction and authority, is quashed and set-aside. 9. Before parting, this Court wish to observe that necessary instructions are required to be imparted to SDM/Sub Divisional Collector, who being quasi judicial authorities are required to be cautious and careful while exercising semi judicial powers. 9. Before parting, this Court wish to observe that necessary instructions are required to be imparted to SDM/Sub Divisional Collector, who being quasi judicial authorities are required to be cautious and careful while exercising semi judicial powers. In the case at hand or other cases, which came to be dealt by this Court in past, it has come to the fore that the ''SDM'' or such like authorities while exercising quasi judicial powers have proceeded to pass orders without verifying the correct position of law, rather in certain cases, they have exceeded their jurisdiction by levying penalty/fine without any authority. Learned Additional Advocate General may make available copy of this Order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to enable him to pass appropriate directions/ instructions, enabling the quasi judicial authorities to be more cautious and careful while exercising powers as semi /quasi judicial authority. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s) , if any.