Lekh Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

( 2026:HHC:25768 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CMP(M) No.1004 of 2026 in LPA No.388 of 2026

¶4

Date of Decision:- 01.07.2026

¶5

Lekh Ram ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Appellant : Mr. P.D. Nanda and Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 6-State.

¶7

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶8

CMP(M) No.1004 of 2026

¶9

Keeping in view the averments made in the

¶10

application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of

¶11

03 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶12

2. The application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶13

LPA No.388 of 2026

¶14

3. Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is

¶15

sought to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP

¶16

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

2

¶18

No.6190 of 2024, titled as Lekh Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, dated 21.04.2026.

¶19

4. In sum and substance, the learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner had accepted the demarcation report, which was prepared on 31.05.2018. The action had been taken in the presence of the petitioner, and there was no objection. It was only on 17.01.2019 that the objections were filed as the demarcation report was earlier conducted by the Naib Tehsildar on 31.05.2018. Thus, the objections filed before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur were dismissed on 14.10.2019 and upheld by the Collector, Tehsil Ghumarwin, order on 20.04.2021 and the Divisional Commissioner, exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla having sustained the order on 16.01.2024, led the learned Single Judge not to intefere in the orders.

¶20

5. The learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the petitioner's factual objections, which claimed that three pucca points had not been fixed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, had already been discussed by the three lower Revenue Authorities and held against the petitioner/appellant. Accordingly, it was recorded that the joint corner of Khasra Nos.

¶21

3

¶22

18, 19, and 20 was marked as point 'A', the joint corner of Khasra Nos. 18, 19, and 16 was marked as point 'B' and the joint corner of Khasra Nos. 24, 25, and 16 was marked as point 'C' in the Mussavi used for conducting the demarcation on the spot. Therefore, the objections as such were justly turned down correctly.

¶23

6. While referring to the statement of the petitioner recorded on 31.05.2018, it was noticed that he had expressed his agreement with the demarcation as carried out on the same day by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur.

¶24

7. Reliance was placed upon the relevant provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act by way of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2023 that while carrying out the demarcation, reference is to be made to the survey-marks to be erected on any boundary already detemined by, or by order of any Court, Revenue Officer or Forest Settlement Officer, or any such Officer had to be done by triangulation system or square system or electronic total station system of measurement etc., as the case may be. In such circumstancs, the concurrent findings as such having been recorded, were upheld.

¶25

4

¶26

8. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that firstly, the Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, while dismissing the appeal on 14.10.2019 (Annexure P-10), recorded that the report of the Naib Tehsildar shows that the pacca bannas had been traced by the Naib Tehsildar Ghumarwin to conduct the demarcation on the spot. The relevant portion reads as under:-

¶27

“The respondents have submitted their objections in writing on dated 17-1-2019. The respondents have submitted objection that the demarcation given by Naib Tehsildar Ghumarwin is against the standing instructions issued by Financial Commissioner (Revenue) since the pacca bannas have not been traced by the Naid Tehsildar Ghumarwin. But from the perusal of the report of the Naib Tehsildar, pacca bannas have been traced by the Naib Tehsildar Ghumarwin to conduct the demarcation on the spot. The pacca points A, B and C have been traced on the spot. The joint corner of Khasra no.18, 19 and 20 have been marked as point A, the joint corner of Khasra no.18, 19 and 16 have been marked as point B and the joint corner of Khasra no.24, 25 and 16 have been marked as point C in the Mussavi used to conduct the demarcation on the spot. From the perusal of the demarcation report, the demarcation was conducted on the spot by taking into consideration three pacca points marked as A, B and C. Hence, the objection filed by the applicant that the pacca points have not been taken to conduct the demarcation is rejected and not sustainable.”

¶28

9. Similarly, the finding recorded by the Collector, Sub-

¶29

Division Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in the appeal, shows that three permanent points were identified and fixed as prescribed in the instructions for demarcation. Furthermore, the statements of

¶30

5

¶31

the parties recorded on the spot mentioned that the demarcation was conducted from the permanent points with their consent. The relevant portion reads as under:-

¶32

“4. From the careful perusal of the Lower Court record, appeal file and the argument of Ld. Counsels it transpires that the Patwari Halqa has informed the parties about the demarcation to be conduct by Naib Tehsildar Ghumarwin on 31/05/2018 through notice placed on lower court file. The demarcation report of Naib Tehsildar Ghumarwin shows that three permanent points were identified and fixed as prescribed in the instruction for demarcation. The statement of the parties recorded on the spot has a mention that demarcation has been conducted from the permanent points fixed with our consent. The objection submitted by present respondent no.2 on 17/01/2019 before lower court has no reference of any objection regarding these permanent points and subsequent demarcation. The Ld. A.C. 1^st Grade in his order dated 14/10/2019 has also elaborated the objection and the fact that the objector could not submit any cogent evidence in his support.”

¶33

10. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, vide order dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure P-18), had noted earlier that there was similar litigation, and that the private respondent, Garja Ram, had also filed a petition before this Court and obtained directions on 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-15) to conduct a fresh demarcation

¶34

of the suit land, which comprised of Khasra Nos. 25 and 26. The demarcation was then completed in pursuance of the said order dated 09.03.2023 and presented the same before the concerned Civil Court. It was noticed that the dispute regarding Khasra No.

¶35

6

¶36

24 has been left open for adjudication, as the same was pending before the Divisional Commissioner. 11. It is also to be noticed that the respondents-Garja Ram and Dandu Ram had also mentioned that the permanent points have been fixed by the Naib Tehsildar Ghumarwin in their presence and with their consent, they have been told about the permanent points and same have been understood by them. It is also noticed that the statement of the petitioner had also been recorded alongwith the two said persons on 31.05.2018. The relevant portion reads as under:-

¶37

“After hearing the arguments and perusing the record of the Lower Court, it transpires that the first contention of the present Petitioner that he was afforded opportunity of being heard by the trial court is considered and rejected on the ground that it is evidence from the zimmni order of the trial court that the present Petitioner i.e. Sh. Lekh Ram was present during the hearing before the trial court and has even given statements regarding the spot visits which are taken on record by the trial court. The second contention of the present Petitioner that the A.C. 2^nd Grade has not followed the instructions contained in H.P. Land Record Manual and those given by the Hon’ble Financial Comissioner of H.P as no three permanent points were ascertained by the A.C. 2^nd Grade nor the statements were recorded to this effect is also considered and rejected on the ground that the statement of the present Petitioner alongwith the present Respondent No.1 & 2 i.e. Sh. Garja Ram and Dandu Ram, mentions that the permanent point have been fixed by the Naib Tehsildar Ghumarwin in their presence and with their consent. It has also been mentioned in the above statement dated 31.05.2018 that they have been told about the permanent point and same have been understood by them. The above mentioned series of facts make it clear that the present Petitioner has been afforded ample

¶38

7

¶39

opportunity of being heard by the trial court and the Naib Tehsildar has duly recorded the statement of all the concerned parties and the A.C. 1^st Grade has also considered all the objections taken by the then Respondents i.e. Sh. Lekh Ram and Sh. Dandu Ram after which he has passed the final order of demarcation dated 14.10.2019.”

¶40

12. The joint statement of the three persons which has now been placed on record, would go on to show that they had no objection to the demarcation which had taken place. Apparently, it was an afterthought and the objections regarding the issue of demarcation were filed thereafter on 17.01.2024, after almost a period of six months.

¶41

13. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings upheld by the learned Single Judge of the Authorities below are not liable to be interfered with in the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA). Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

¶42

14. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶43

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶44

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶45

1^st July, 2026 (Munish Thakur)

Lekh Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekh Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakti Feed Corporation and Another Vs the Hp State Cooperative Wool Procurement and Marketing Federation Ltd.

Prem Thakur Vs State of Hp and Another

Rajneesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Suraj Prakash Vs the State of Hp

Cube Construction Engineering Vs State of Hp and Others

Nishant Sharma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another