IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 239 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.10.2011 Mast Ram ... Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 20.5.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal, vide which the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 3. Respondent No. 4 had refused to take the notice, hence he was proceeded against ex parte. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that a prayer had been made by the plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 since on his application, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade had assigned the demarcation to be conducted by Naib Tehsildar, who gave the report accordingly. However, the plea taken by the petitioner in this petition as well as before the learned trial Court is that since the land to be demarcated belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh and according to the rules, the demarcation had to be given by a person of the rank of Assistant Collector Ist Grade and not below that rank and, therefore, the Naib Tehsildar was not competent to demarcate the land. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner deserved to be allowed accordingly. 6. My attention has been drawn to Rule 10.10 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual, which is reproduced as under:- “10.10 Revenue Officer not below the rank of AC Ist grade shall demarcate the boundaries of government lands with private lands. The Field Kanungo shall not in any case demarcate the government lands with private land.” 7. It is, therefore, clear that once the demarcation had not been given by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the petitioner should have been permitted to apply for fresh appointment of Local Commissioner or his application for appointment of Local Commissioner should have been allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and there will be a direction to the S.D.M., Rohru, District Shimla, to appoint Assistant Collector Ist Grade within the Sub Division from Jubbal or Rohru, to demarcate the land and the application for demarcation as earlier assigned to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, be considered afresh by the S.D.M., Rohru, by referring the matter for demarcation to the Assistant 3 Collector Ist Grade, who shall demarcate the land in accordance with law and submit his report within three months to the S.D.M. Rohru, who shall intimate the parties accordingly. Parties to appear before the S.D.M., Rohru, alongwith a copy of this order for compliance on 16th November, 2011, who shall pass the order accordingly. 8. In view of the above, the petition stands allowed accordingly. The said report shall be submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff before the learned trial Court, who shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. Copy Dasti. ( V.K. Ahuja ), October 19, 2011 Judge (BSS)