IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 139 of 1998 Date of Decision 12.8.2008 __________________________________________________________ 1. RSA No. 139 of 1998 Surinder Kumar. ….Appellant. Versus Sita Ram and others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Shri K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This is the plaintiff’s second appeal against the judgment and decree of learned trial Court dismissing the suit of plaintiff praying for decree of possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 810/1, measuring 1 Marla, as per Tatima prepared by the Field Kanungo as per jamabandi for the year 1976-77, as situated in Tika Gaura Manjhla Tappa Bajuri of Tehsil and District Hamirpur. The learned trial Court on the crucial issue, whether defendant No.1 had encroached upon the land comprised Khasra No. 819, held that on several occasions on request of the parties, experts from the Revenue Agency 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 were appointed as Local Commissioners for demarcation. Reports of two Local Commissioners namely Bakshi Ram and Dharam Singh, both Naib Tehsildar, were not accepted and finally on 4.9.1988, Shri Ishwar Dass, Retired Tehsildar was appointed as Local Commissioner. His report Ext.LC/1 was accepted after the objections were dismissed and report was made final. The suit was accordingly dismissed. In appeal before the learned District Judge, the plaintiff contended that the report was in accordance with law and could not be faulted with. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The plaintiff is now in appeal. This appeal was admitted on 28.6.1999 on substantial questions of law Nos. 2 and 4 which are as under:- 2. Whether the report of Ishar Dass Soni Ext.LC/1 could be accepted when proper Karukarans had not been provided and demarcation had not been carried out in accordance with the instructions of the Financial Commissioner and the High Court Rules and orders and also not keeping in view the old musabi as directed? 4. Whether the findings of the Court below are vitiated for misconstruction of the oral and documentary evidence and the acceptance of the report of Local Commissioner Ishwar Dass Soni Ext.LC/1? I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record. I find that both the Courts below have applied the correct principle in appreciating the report of Local Commissioner. The learned trial Court holds that Ext.LC/1 shows that there may be encroachment of half Karam which is absolutely negligible. In his evidence, the Local Commissioner himself has stated this. The Court also holds that on the objections of plaintiff, his land was 3 repeatedly demarcated and again the difference found was half Karam which is negligible area of land. The learned District Judge has also found that the report Ext.LC/1 has been proved in accordance with law and that the evidence of Local Commissioner OW1 cannot be faulted with. He also found that the encroachment, if any, is only about six square metres which is negligible. On the evidence of PW5 Kesar Singh relied upon by plaintiff the Court correctly held that demarcation carried out by him is not in accordance with the instructions issued by Financial Commissioner and the High Court Rules and Orders and was therefore rightly ignored by the Court below. Four Local Commissioners were appointed during the pendency of case and report of two of them was not accepted. The Court below also finds that settlement authorities had also rejected the repeated objections made/preferred by the appellant herein against demarcation etc. I have gone through the evidence of witnesses and found nothing on record which would indicate that questions of law as framed require determination more especially when there is nothing on record to show and suggest that the instructions of High Court Rules and Orders are not followed. Coupled with the fact that encroachment, if any, is absolutely negligible, no question of law arises for determination. This appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. August 12,2008 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge