Durga Dass vs Paras Ram

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan rejecting the application filed by the present Petitioner for appointment of fresh local commissioner to demarcate the suit land. There is No. manner of doubt that a boundary dispute exists between the parties and this boundary dispute can be resolved only by obtaining a report from a revenue expert.

Having held so, it is apparent from the record that there is a valid report existing as on date. This Court has repeatedly held that if there is demarcation report already existing, No. fresh local commissioner should be appointed, unless the earlier demarcation report is set aside.

Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Defendant-Petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 17.5.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Collector, Solan on an appeal filed by Shri Durga Dass for demarcation of land. The learned Collector held that this application was filed after Smt. Devku one of the Respondent had already expired on 20.9.2005 and, therefore, such application was not maintainable against dead person and any demarcation carried out was null and void. It is obvious from a reading of this order that the Collector dismissed the application filed by Durga Dass for demarcation of the land and also set aside the demarcation given on the application filed by Durga Dass being case number 63/VIII of 2007 decided on 18.7.2007. He also rejected the application being 12/08-II of 2008. In this order, there is No. reference to demarcation report dated 18.7.2007 submitted/carried out by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Krishangarh, Tehsil Kasauli in Case No. 26/8 of 2005. The said report and the connected documents have been exhibited as Ext. PW3/A, PW3/B, PW3/C and PW3/D. The learned trial Court was, therefore, justified in holding that since the demarcation report Ext. PW3/D is existing on record, there is No. need to appoint fresh local commissioner. Therefore, I find No. merit in the petition which is dismissed accordingly. Needless to say that the Petitioner-Defendant can always in accordance with law argue before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan that the report Ext.PW3/D should not be relied upon in evidence.

In view of the above discussion, the petition is disposed of. No. costs.