IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 308 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.10.2011 Sant Nirankari Petitioner. Versus Shanti Lal and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. B.K.Malhotra, Advocate. For the respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Mandi dated 25th June, 2011 whereby he allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and directed the petitioner-defendant No.2 to maintain status quo over the suit land. 2. Briefly stated, one Dharam Pal was the owner of the entire property. He had four sons and four daughters and defendant No.2 purchased the share of Manohar Lal in the property in question. It is stated that share of Manohar Lal works out to approximately 1 bigha. According to defendant No.2 it had started raising certain construction in the year 1997 and a substantial portion of the construction has been 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes, 2 raised and virtually the ground floor is complete and this allegation is not disputed that the construction has been raised on the ground floor and a slab has been laid. I have seen the photographs and it is apparent that the walls and structure of the building as far as the ground floor is concerned are complete and only window and doors have to be affixed. This construction could not have been completed overnight and even if the version of defendant No.2 that it started the construction in the year 1997 is not to be believed it is apparent that a substantial amount of construction has taken place and lot of money has been spent and in such eventuality if order of status quo is continued defendant No.2 shall suffer irreparable loss. It has also been pointed out to me by the learned counsel that some land slides took place during the last monsoon which have necessitated the construction of retaining wall to protect the building. 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the order issued by the learned District Judge is set-aside and the following directions are issued:- (1) The defendant No.2 shall be permitted to raise construction over the ground floor already constructed by him strictly in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Council, Mandi. (2) It is made clear that the construction will be raised only over the area over which the construction already stands and no fresh construction will be permitted on vacant land under the grab of this order. (3) The learned trail Court is directed to 3 appoint a Local Commissioner probably an engineer to visit the spot who shall ensure that video recording and photographs are taken and map to the scale of the existing property is prepared. (4) The Commissioner should also suggest to the Court whether the construction of the retaining wall is required or not to protect the building which is in existence and if so required he shall clearly indicate the minimum construction of retaining wall required for the said purpose. (5) If the Commissioner recommends that construction of wall is required to protect the building then the same shall be strictly in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioner as accepted by the Court. (6) It is made clear that in partition proceedings the petitioner shall not claim any equity on the basis of the construction of the building or the retaining wall if any to be further raised by him. (7) All the co-sharers are directed to maintain status quo qua the remaining vacant land till partition takes place. No order as to costs. Dasti copy. 18th October, 2011. (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.