High CourtsSingle Bench

Shri. Hira Lal vs Shri. Data Ram

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 7 December 2011 · Citation: (2011) 12 SHI CK 0014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surjit Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
CMPMO No. 398 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 465 words

Surjit Singh, Judge

1.

Heard and gone through the record.

2.

Petitioner, claiming himself to be owner of land bearing Khasra No. 37, situate in Mauza Jaul, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, has filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondent-defendant Data Ram from making encroachment on a portion of the said Khasra number, while raising construction on the adjoining land. Suit is being contested by the defendant-respondent. He denies that encroachment has been made or is being made on the land bearing Khasra No. 37, belonging to the petitioner-plaintiff.

3.

Petitioner moved an application to the Civil Court, where the suit is pending, for appointment of Local Commissioner to carry out demarcation, for the purpose of ascertaining whether any encroachment has been made or is likely to be made by the respondent, while raising construction of his building. That application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 8th September, 2011, copy Annexure P-1. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order and has approached this Court, by means of the present petition, for setting aside the said order and allowing his application for appointment of Local Commissioner.

4.

Learned trial Court has observed in its order that in between the land of the plaintiff and the site on which the defendant claims to be raising construction, there is Government land and that it is not the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that the Government land, falling between the two properties, has been encroached and the defendant-respondent is now intending to extend the encroachment to the suit property of the plaintiff. This could not have been a ground for rejection of petitioner''s prayer for appointment of Local Commissioner. Petitioner has nothing to do with the Government land, falling between the properties of the parties and, therefore, he was not supposed to plead that property of the Government, falling between the two properties, had already been encroached upon and that after encroaching upon that property, the respondent intended to make further encroachment upon his (petitioner''s) property.

5.

In view of the abovestated position, the present petition is allowed, impugned order dated 8th September, 2011, Annexure P-1, is set aside and petitioner''s application for appointment of Local Commissioner is allowed. Learned trial Court shall appoint some Assistant Collector, 1st Grade posted at Kasauli to visit the spot, in the presence of the parties/their counsel to carry out demarcation of Khasra No. 37 of the petitioner and to report whether any encroachment has been made and/or is likely to be made by the respondent, while constructing his building, in question. Fee of the Local Commissioner shall be fixed by the learned trial Court.

6.

Petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner