IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 396 of 2009 Date of Decision : October 7, 2009 Sh. Jagar Nath Petitioner Versus Smt. Khalelo and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. G. D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. C. N. Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The plaintiff has assailed the impugned order dated 12.3.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Sundernagar, Mandi, H.P., dismissing his objection petition dated 17.11.2008 filed in opposition to the Local Commissioner’s report dated 6.6.2008. The impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Sundernagar is reproduced in its entirety as under: 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “ Heard. After perusal of the report of Local Commissioner it is manifested from the written report of the Local Commissioner that he has explored and fixed the permanent points on the suit land at the very outset of the demarcation. It further appears that he has also drawn diagonal from different points. Moreover, parties present at the spot have not raised any objection regarding the procedure of demarcation. The Local Commissioner duly recorded the statements of parties at the spot. Hence, in my view the objection raised by the plaintiff are not tenable. However, if plaintiff has any doubt regarding the proceedings of the demarcation by the Local Commissioner, he can call the Local Commissioner for examination at the relevant stage of the trial. As per discussion above and reasons assigned, objection raised by the plaintiff are rejected. Local Commissioner report of dated 7.6.2008 shall form part of the record. Now, the case be fixed for PWs on 27.5.2009, subject to last opportunity.” Learned counsel for the parties have invited my attention to the report of the Local Commissioner as also the record placed on the file of the Civil Judge. Learned counsel for the parties have also referred to and relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in State of H.P. versus Laxmi Nand and others, 1992 (2) Sim. L.C. 307 and Kamal Dev and another versus Hans Raj, 2001 (1) Civil Court Cases 345 (H.P.). Mr. G. D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel 3 appearing for the plaintiff has also invited my attention to the decision of this Court as reported in Om Parkash versus Ved Parkash and others, Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 564. The plaintiff had objected to the report of the Local Commissioner inter alia on the ground that the procedure required to be followed by the Local Commissioner/revenue agencies for carrying out the demarcation was not complied with. No less than eight reasons were assigned for nonadherence of the same. Regretfully the order passed by the Court below is cryptic in nature and the Court has not even referred to or dealt with any of the objections raised by the objector. No doubt the plaintiff had consented to the demarcation being carried out and signed the report as acceptable but however the Court was duty bound to examine whether there was any infraction of mandatory rules/guidelines/instructions and provisions of statute. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Court below. The instructions issued by the revenue officials to carry out demarcation as contained in Chapter 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 as also Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 are mandatory in nature and are required to be strictly adhered to. This question stands settled by this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties being Laxmi Nand (supra) and Kamal Dev (supra). 4 In the impugned order, while dismissing the objection application the court has also not considered the question of infraction of the said instructions. Without going into this question as is strongly urged by Mr. G. D. Verma, Learned Senior Counsel I am of the view that the impugned order needs to be set aside for another reason, and that being that to prove his objections no opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff to lead evidence as has been so held to be necessary by this Court in Om Parkash (supra). Without going into the question of the violation of the governmental instructions issued from time to time the impugned order is set aside on the limited point and the matter is remanded back to the concerned Court for deciding the objection petition afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Court below shall afford opportunity to the parties to examine the Commissioner on various aspects with regard to the noncompliance/adherence of the governmental instructions. Keeping in view the letter dated 6.5.2008 issued by the revenue official, opportunity shall also be afforded to the parties to prove as to whether the Commissioner was actually having with him the authenticated revenue record (mussabi etc.) before carrying out the demarcation. It has been urged by Mr. C. N. Singh, learned counsel that Smt. Khalelo Devi is quite aged and has been unnecessarily dragged 5 to the court by the plaintiff. The fact that defendant No. 1 is aged has not been disputed by Mr. G. D. Verma, Learned Senior Counsel. Hence keeping in view the facts and circumstances the Court below is directed to expedite the trial and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eighteen months from today. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 28th October, 2009. The record be sent back immediately. With the aforesaid observations the present petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 7, 2009 (PK)