IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 123 of 2007 Date of Decision : July 15, 2009 Sh. Dev Raj Petitioner Versus Sh. Sujan Singh and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) On 23.5.2008 this Court had passed the following order: “There is short controversy in the present case. The plaintiff Sujan Singh is the original owner of the property. Admittedly, he executed a sale deed in favour of Shri Shadi Lal on 29th March, 2003. By this sale deed, plaintiff sold 0-03-84 hectares (1 Kanal) of land to Shadi Lal. This land was comprised in Khasra Nos. 332/2 and 333/2 in Khewat No. 105 min, Khatauni No.177 min. It is also not disputed that this land was later sold by Shadi Lal in favour of Dev Raj. The plaintiff Sujan Singh filed a suit in which he has not denied the execution of the sale deed. He has also not denied that he has sold 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Khasra Nos. 332/2 and 333/2 measuring 0-03-84 hectares (1 Kanal). His case, however, is that the Tatima annexed to the sale deed was not prepared correctly and the land shown in the Tatima was not as per the spot. This averments of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant. When I heard the mater on the last date, I found that the parties were ad idem on the issue with regard to the area sold and also in respect of Khasra numbers of the land which had been sold. There is no dispute between the parties that the land sold by the plaintiff was comprised in khasra Nos. 332/2 and 333/2. It is also not disputed that total area of land sold is 0-03-84 hectares (1 Kanal). Therefore, I had called the parties in the Court today because I felt that this is a fit case where with the intervention of the Court the parties may be able to resolve the dispute between them. The parties are present. They have agreed that the land in Khasra No. 332/2 and 333/2 measuring 0-03-84 hectares (1 Kanal) may be got demarcated from a competent Revenue Officer so that the entire dispute between the parties including the suit out of which the present petition arises can be disposed of in terms of the said demarcation. The parties have agreed that if a senior Revenue Officer is appointed to demarcate the property and the demarcation is done in accordance with law then they shall not object to the demarcation report and they agree that the suit and the petition be disposed of in terms of the said report. Separate statements of the parties have been recorded in this regard. 3 Keeping in view the statements of the parties and the agreed position that only one Kanal of land comprised in Khasra No. 332/2 and 333/2 measuring 0- 03-84 hectares has been sold, this dispute can be settled easily by appointing a competent Revenue Officer of appropriate rank to demarcate the land sold. The Settlement Officer, Dharamshala, is appointed as Local Commissioner, who shall go to the spot and shall demarcate Khasra No. 332/2 and 333/2 measuring 0- 03-84 hectares (1 Kanal) in Khewat No. 105 min, Khatauni No.177 min, in village Barnoh, Tehsil and District Una. The Local Commissioner shall conduct the demarcation in the presence of the parties. He shall fix the date of demarcation on 5th July, 2008 when the parties shall appear before him. In case any of the parties does not remain present on the date fixed by the Settlement Officer he may conduct the demarcation in the absence of such party. However, if the parties are present, he shall fix the first Pakka Point with the consent of the parties and if they do not agree, then the Pakka Point shall be fixed by the Local Commissioner in accordance with the instructions of the Financial Commissioner in this regard. The demarcation shall be carried out with the help of the local revenue staff. The demarcation be conducted strictly in accordance with the rules. The parties are directed to appear before the Settlement Officer, Dharamshala, on 5th June, 2008. On the said date the parties can also give copy of this order before the Settlement Officer, Dharamshala. The Settlement Officer, Dharmshala, shall make an endeavour to complete the demarcation in the month of June and 4 submit his report by 15th July, 2008. Fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs.6,000/- to be shared equally by the parties. This fee shall be paid by the parties to the Local Commissioner on 5th June, 2008. If the Settlement Officer finds that the area of both the Khasra numbers 332/2 and 333/3 is either more or less than 0- 03-84 hectares (1 Kanal), he shall also specifically state the area of these Khasra numbers in his report. List the matter on 29th July, 2008. Dasti copy. ” The statement of the parties was recorded whereby they had agreed that they shall be bound by the demarcation report to be carried out by the revenue officials (Settlement Officer, Dharamshala) and that the suit be disposed of in view of the demarcation report. The Settlement Officer, Kangra Division, Dharamshala vide his report dated 18.4.2009 has given his findings as under: “(A) That both the parties have no dispute on the demarcation of the boundaries of Khasra No. 332/2 and 333/2 and they are satisfied with the demarcation. (B) That both the parties agree that they have sold and purchased 0-03-84 Hect. of land comprising of the above two Khasra numbers. (C) That there is dispute over the dimensions and the area calculated while preparing the tatima which has been attached with Sale Deed No. 522 dated 29.3.2003. 5 (D) That both the dimensions and the area has been wrongly depicted and calculated by the revenue staff at the time of the preparation of the tatima. (E) That on the basis of the wrong calculation of area and wrong depiction of dimensions the present Petitioner Dev Raj has undue advantage of 0-00-81 Hect. (Appr. 4 Marlas) of land. The Petitioner Sh. Dev Raj must be aware of these mistakes as he is a serving Kanungo in the office of the Deputy Commissioner Una. (F) That the possibility of the tatima and the area having been deliberately prepared/calculated wrongly by the concerned revenue staff also cannot be ruled out. (G) That the tatima attached with the Sale deed No. 522 dated 29.3.2003 will have to be amended as per the Annexure C-1 and the field book placed at Annexure C-8 and the mutations entered on the basis of above tatima are required to be reviewed and fresh mutations as per the proposed tatima placed at Annexure C-1 and field book placed at Annexure C-8 will have to attested afresh.” From the report it is evident that the Settlement Officer has carried out elaborate demarcation after carefully perusing the record and also prepared Aks Tatima (site plan). The same, alongwith other documents is part of the report. In view of the statements of the parties and the order dated 23.5.2008, as stated by the learned counsel for the parties, the report needs to be implemented. 6 It is therefore directed that the recommendation and the finding be implemented by the authorities in the revenue record. Needful be done positively within a period of three months from today. Civil Suit No. 6 of 2006, titled as Sujan Singh versus Shadi Lal and another pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. III, Una, H.P., as also the present petition is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to be placed in the file of the civil suit. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 15, 2009 (PK)