IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4073 of 2009 Decided on : June 16, 2010 Anant Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. O.P. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. K.R. Kashyap, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. An order of ejectment, Annexure P-4, was passed against the petitioner by the Collector-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, on 11th September, 2008. Petitioner was ordered to be ejected from 7114 sq. metres area, forming part of Khasra No.426, belonging to the Forest Department. Order was passed, under Section 5 of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. Before passing the order, a notice, under Section 4 of the said Act, was issued to the petitioner, but he refused to accept the service. 3. Appeal was filed against the aforesaid order to the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, who dismissed the same, vide order dated 3rd September, 2009, Annexure P-6. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. Petitioner has sought the quashing of order Annexure P-6 of Divisional Commissioner as also the original order Annexure P-4 of Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer. According to the petitioner, land bearing Khasra No.426, belonging to the State, is surrounded, on three sides, by private land and, therefore, demarcation was required to be carried out by an Assistant Collector, but in the present case only a Kanoongo was deputed to give demarcation and, therefore, on the basis of that demarcation order of eviction could not have been passed. 5. State in its reply has stated that demarcation carried out by the Kanoongo had been attested by the Tehsildar. 6. It is clear from order Annexure P-6 of Divisional Commissioner that Kanoongo is not competent to give demarcation in a case for identification of Government land, where the Government land adjoins private land, though it is a different matter that the Divisional Commissioner has observed that the petitioner did not claim that there was any private land adjoining Khasra No.426. 7. Petitioner has placed on record a certificate of Patwari Annexure P-10, per which Khasra No.426 is sandwiched between the private land of the petitioner and one Chandia. Now, if the land, from which ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered, adjoins private lands on two sides, as per certificate Ex .P-10, Kanoongo, under the …3… Rules, could not have given the demarcation. Demarcation was required to be carried out by Assistant Collector. Therefore, impugned orders Annexures P-4 and P-6 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, with a direction to decide the same afresh, after obtaining demarcation from an Assistant Collector, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Theog, on 30th June, 2010. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, as having become infructuous. June 16, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J