IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.70 of 2010 Date of decision : September 15, 2010 Kans Raj …Appellant. Versus Netar Singh and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. A suit was filed by plaintiff Baldev Singh against the defendant-appellant, for possession of certain land, alleging that he was owner of the land and defendant-appellant had forcibly dispossessed him in the year 1995. Suit was contested by the defendant- appellant, on the ground that he had taken over the possession, forcibly, in the year 1982 and ever since he had been in possession and his possession was hostile, open and as of right. 3. Two Courts below have returned a concurrent finding that the plaintiff had been dispossessed in the year 1995. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has relied upon demarcation report to come to the conclusion that the suit land belongs to the plaintiff and that the demarcation had not been carried out, as per procedure prescribed by the Financial Commissioner. Submission that demarcation was not carried out, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, even if accepted, would not lend any support to appellant’s case, for the reason that the appellant himself admits that the suit land belongs to the plaintiff and he occupied it forcibly in the year 1982. Hence, there was no dispute regarding identification of the land. 5. Next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit land measures 15-16 Kanals and such a huge area could not have been encroached upon. Again, the submission is without merit, because the defendant-appellant himself stated, in the written statement, that he had forcibly occupied the suit land and his possession was adverse. 6. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant is that an application had been moved, under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for ascertaining the age of Mango trees, standing on the suit land, but that had been rejected, wrongly. Learned counsel submits that Mango plants were planted on the …3… suit land by the appellant in the year 1982 and had a Local Commissioner been appointed, result of inspection carried out by him would have indicated that the age of the trees was such that it corresponded to the year of forcible possession of the suit land by the appellant, i.e. 1982. Learned counsel, on being asked by the Court, has read the statements of the witnesses, including that of the defendant. None of them stated that Mango plants were planted on the suit land in the year 1982 or that their age was more than 12 years and, therefore, there was hardly any occasion for appointment of Local Commissioner. 7. No other point has been urged. 8. The aforesaid submissions do not pertain to any substantial question of law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of, having become infructuous. September 15, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J