Balak Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

3(i) A civil suit was preferred by the predecessor of respondents No. 3 & 4 against one Sh. Lekh Ram, predecessor-ininterest of the present petitioner and respondents No. 9 & 10, as

¶17

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶18

2

¶19

( 2026:HHC:5055 )

¶20

also other parties. The civil suit was instituted on 21.04.2009 for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction under Sections 34, 38 & 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Subject matter of the civil suit was land measuring 0-4-8 bighas comprised in Khewat No. 18, Khatauni No.20, Khasra No. 48 situated in Muhal Padsal, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. Learned Civil Court dismissed the suit on 30.08.2012 holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish his ownership and possession over the suit land and that the defendant was the recorded owner in possession of the suit land and did not owe any legal obligations towards the plaintiff qua the suit land.

¶21

3(ii) Present petitioner moved an application before the concerned revenue authority seeking demarcation of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 48 & 270, Mohal Padsal, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. The concerned authority ordered issuance of notice/information to the affected parties for their presence on the spot on 18.02.2019.

¶22

Page 40 of the paper book (part of Annexure P-6) reflects an order passed by the competent authority on 18.02.2019 recording that demarcation of the aforesaid two khasra numbers was carried out in accordance with law in presence of all parties. At page 41 of the paper book (part of Annexure P-6) are the statements made by the concerned affected parties, including the petitioner, stating that the demarcation of Khasra Nos. 48 & 270

¶23

3

¶24

( 2026:HHC:5055 )

¶25

was carried out in accordance with law in their presence; That they understood and comprehended the demarcation so carried out, and accepted the same. The said joint statement dated 18.02.2019 bears the signatures of the affected parties, including that of the present petitioner.

¶26

3(iii) Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed objections to the aforementioned demarcation before the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Sundernagar. His objections were that: (i) For the purpose of carrying out demarcation, statements of parties regarding the fixed points were not recorded prior to commencement of demarcation; and (ii) Other co-sharers were not present on the spot and the land was demarcated in their absence. 3(iv) Petitioner’s objections were dismissed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade on 19.02.2020 (Annexure P-8). The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Sundernagar on 28.01.2022. The revision petition filed by him thereafter was also dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh.

¶27

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dismissing his objections against the demarcation conducted by the competent authority, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶28

4 . Heard & considered the case file.

¶29

4

¶30

( 2026:HHC:5055 )

¶31

Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has emphasised that the demarcation conducted by the competent authority on 18.02.2019 was not in accordance with law and that the applicable standing instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh concerning demarcations, were not adhered to with while demarcating the land in question. It was further contended that the Revenue Authorities have dismissed petitioner’s objections against the demarcation only on an irrelevant aspect about the same having been conducted in his presence. Hence, prayer was made for setting aside the impugned orders.

¶32

5. I have gone through the order passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Sundernagar dismissing petitioner’s objections on 19.02.2020, the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. Sub Divisional Collector, as also as the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh. The authorities below have concurrently returned findings of fact that not only was the petitioner present at the spot at the time of demarcation carried out by the Field Kanungo on 18.02.2019, but after accepting the demarcation to be correct and in furtherance thereof, he also appended his signatures on the joint statement got recorded by the parties. It will be

¶33

5

¶34

( 2026:HHC:5055 )

¶35

appropriate here to extract the joint statement signed by the parties including the petitioner (translation as supplied during hearing of the case by learned counsel for the petitioner): -

¶36

“The parties jointly stated that today, in the presence of the concerned field Kanungo and the Patwari of Circle Churad, demarcation of Khasra Nos. 48 and 270, measuring in total 8- 17-3 bighas, situated in Mohal Person-37, was carried out at the spot. The demarcation was commenced through chain measurement (jarib measurement) on the basis of authentic revenue records, and the boundaries of the said Khasra numbers were duly determined. Boundary stones were affixed in accordance with the revenue documents, which we have carefully seen and understood. The demarcation conducted at the spot is acceptable to us. This is our joint statement and nothing further remains to be stated. The statement was read over to us, found correct, and signed accordingly.”

¶37

It is not the case of the petitioner that he had not

¶38

accepted the demarcation on the spot on 18.02.2019 or not got his statement recorded on the said date & signed the same. That being the position, it was certainly not open for the petitioner to subsequently question the demarcation on the ground that the same had not been carried out in accordance with law. It would be pertinent at this stage to note Section 107 of the H.P. Land Revenue that gives power to the revenue officers to define boundaries. The section reads as under: -

¶39

“ 107. Power of Revenue Officers to define boundaries.- (1) A Revenue Officer may, for the purpose of

¶40

6

¶41

( 2026:HHC:5055 )

¶42

framing any record or making any assessment under this Act or on the application of any person interested, define the limits of any estate, or of any holding, field or other portion of an estate, and may, for the purpose of indicating those limits, require survey-marks to be erected or repaired.

¶43

(2) In defining the limits of any land under sub-section (1) the Revenue Officer may, cause survey-marks to be erected on any boundary already determined by, or by order of any Court, Revenue Officer or Forest Settlement Officer, or restore any survey-marks already set up by, or by order of any Court or any such Officer.”

¶44

Following Sub-sections (3) to (7) were inserted in

¶45

above Section 107 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act by way of the

¶46

H.P. Land Revenue (Amendment) Act 2023: -

¶47

“ (3) The Revenue Officer shall define the limits of boundaries mentioned in sub-section (1) by conducting measurements on the basis of the method of surveys used during the last settlement that is by triangulation system or square system or electronic total station system of measurement etc. as the case may be.

¶48

(4) The Revenue Officer shall decide the proceedings of defining the boundaries within two months from the date of filing of application thereof:

¶49

Provided that for the reasons to be recorded in writing the time period may be extended by one month.

¶50

(5) If the Revenue Officer fails to decide the case within the extended period, the proceedings shall not become invalid for final adjudication merely on the ground of lapse of the stipulated period. However the Revenue Officer shall submit a report in the manner as may be prescribed citing reasons for such delay to the officer under whose control he is subjected to and after considering the report and examining the record, if the Controlling Officer is satisfied that there were valid and genuine reasons for delay in deciding the case he may accept the report with no

¶51

7

¶52

( 2026:HHC:5055 )

¶53

further action. In case the Controlling Officer is not satisfied with the report, he shall submit his observations to the Government for such action and in such manner as may be prescribed, against the erring officer.

¶54

(6) If the Revenue Officer fails to submit a report required under sub-section (5), he shall be liable for an action under relevant service rules applicable to such officer after following due procedure.

¶55

(7) If all the interested parties have agreed to and accepted the limits defined by the Revenue Officer under sub-section (1) and objections have not been raised by any of the interested party during the proceedings, no appeal shall lie against the order of the Revenue Officer in such proceedings.".

¶56

Section 107(7) thus clearly provides that in case all interested parties agree & accept the demarcation and no objection is raised during demarcation, no appeal shall lie against the order of revenue officer in such proceedings. This provision also clearly debars the petitioner in objecting to the demarcation after accepting the same.

¶57

Besides, demarcation report records that the Field Kanungo followed the prescribed procedure while carrying out the demarcation, which was accepted by the concerned parties, including the petitioner. Having accepted the demarcation report, having categorically made a statement to that effect, and signed the same, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend later that the demarcation was not carried out in accordance with law. His further objection that the demarcation was conducted in the absence of the

¶58

8

¶59

( 2026:HHC:5055 )

¶60

respondents, was also justly rejected by all the authorities. In any case, such an objection could have been raised by the concerned respondents and not by the petitioner. The authorities below have, however, returned factual findings that all respondents, except S/Sh. Ram Singh and Paras Ram, were present on the spot; They had accepted the demarcation & accordingly signed the joint statement; The aforenamed two persons, who were not on the spot, did not raise any objection to the demarcation carried out by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Sunder Nagar. Petitioner, in the given and admitted facts cannot plead a cause for others, who are not affected & have not objected.

¶61

In view of above, the present petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶62

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶63

02^nd March, 2026(rohit)

Balak Ram v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balak Ram v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shalini Thakur Vs State of Hp

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Hp

Mukesh Sharma Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.Ltd.

Vipin Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Roshan Lal Vs the Hptdcl and Another

Amar Singh Vs Hrtc and Others