IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 268 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.09.2010 Balak Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Eviction Proceedings under Section 5 of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 were initiated against respondent No.2 on the complaint of the present petitioner. The allegation was that respondent No.2 had encroached upon one biswa of Government land adjoining Khasra No. 1435/1 and 1436 by constructing a tin roof shed and this area falls within the acquired width of NH-21. Notice was issued to the respondent by the Collector and after recording evidence, the eviction order was passed against respondent No.2 by the Collector on 7.12.2009. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 2. An appeal was filed in the court of Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, who vide his order dated 5.6.2010 has allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that no tatima of the land has been prepared after demarcation to show what is the land in the illegal possession of respondent No.2. 3. A perusal of the order of the Collector clearly shows that even the respondent had admitted that the demarcation had been conducted. The case set up by her was that the demarcation was conducted in her absence and therefore, she was not bound by this. In fact, thereafter the Collector directed the Tehsildar, Kullu to carry out fresh demarcation which was done vidfe Ext. PW-4/A on 16.1.2007 by the Naib Tehsildar alongwith Patwari Halqua and Field Kanungo of Bhuntar. The demarcation was conducted in the presence of respondent No.2 Dharmi Devi. On demarcation, it was found that the land descried as Tukda No.1, measuring 0-1 biswas was encroached by Smt. Dharmi Devi by constructing a Khoka/shed and this un-demarcated Government land was situated on the Mandi-Manali(bye-pass) National Highway. PW-2 proved original tatima Ext. PW-2/A and the demarcation report Ext.PW-2/B prepared by him. PW-4 carried out fresh demarcation which was done vide Ext. PW-4 Naib Tehsildar proved demarcation carried out in presence of Dharmi Devi Ext.PW-4/A. It is, therefore, obvious that the demarcation was done and the land was found to be in the illegal possession of respondent No.2. The land was properly identified. 3 4. The order of the learned Divisional Commissioner is wholly incorrect and against the record and is accordingly set aside and the order of the Collector dated 7.12.2009 is upheld. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 13, 2010 (VT)