IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 276 of 2010. Date of decision: 19.4.2011. Parbal Singh …Petitioner. Versus Kallu alias Kali Ram & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 25.6.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.2, Paonta Sahib rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner to the report of the Local Commissioner. 2. The main objection of the petitioner who is the defendant in the learned Trial Court is that the “Karukans” of khasra No. 153 on its Northern side are not correctly reflected in the Mussabi as per the measurements on the basis of scale. According to the petitioner, the Northern 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. side of this Khasra number works out to 22 karams on the basis of scale, but in figures it is mentioned as 28 karams. There is no doubt that there is some discrepancy in the : 2 : measurements and the figures depicted in the Muassbi. The fact, however, is that the settlement during which this error crept in took place in the year 1997. Correction of such error had to be made by the Revenue Authorities and not by the Civil Court. The learned Trial Court even asked for clarification from the Collector, who in his communication stated that though as per measurements, the Karukan in the Northern side of khasra No.153 works out to 22 karams, but it should actually be 28 karams, otherwise the area belonging to the plaintiff would not work out to 5 bighas 14 biswas and would be reduced to 5-5 bighas. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly an application has been filed by the defendant-petitioner before the Collector for correcting the Karukans and this application is still pending. According to him, if the Karukans are corrected and the northern side of khasra No. 153 reduced to 22 karams, then no encroachment would be found. As noted above, the settlement proceedings took place in the year 1997-98. The present suit was filed in the year 1999. The earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed in default a long time back and even in that suit, objections had been made to the report of the Local Commissioner on this very ground. No doubt, in the said suit the report of the Local : 3 : Commissioner was not accepted, on the ground that there is dispute with regard to the correctness of the Karukan, but this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner has failed to point out as to what he has done to pursue his application for correction of the Karukans. At this stage, when the Karukans are depicted as 28 karams in the mussabi, even if this does not tally with the scale, the same shall have to be accepted as correct and demarcation carried out accordingly. In case the application of the petitioner is accepted and the Karukans corrected to 22 karams, then the petitioner can file fresh application for appointment of Local Commissioner, but if no correction is made, then the report has to be accepted. Therefore, at this stage there is no ground to set aside the report of the Local Commissioner. The petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that if the Karukans are changed at any stage, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apprise the Court of this development and may file a fresh application for demarcation of the land. 4. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 23.5.2011. The record of the learned Trial Court be sent back, so as to reach well before the date fixed. Since, the suit is of the year 1999, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the same at the earliest in any event not later than 31st July, 2011. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge April 19, 2011. (Krn Guleria)