IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review Petition No. 73 of 2008 Decided on: 8.7.2009. Smt. Ishwari Devi …Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Kumar and others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate and Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.L.Kashyap, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Umesh Kanwar vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Kuldip Singh , Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed this petition for review of judgment dated 2.5.2008 on the ground that the petitioner cannot be deprived of her land. The petitioner had raised the claim for grant of decree for possession and mandatory injunction of the land found to have been encroached by the respondents / defendants. This Court has not considered the case of the petitioner for grant of relief of possession. The principle of estoppel and acquiescence are not applicable against the true owner. The payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- would amount to forced sale of the property of the petitioner. These grounds were taken but were not considered by the Court. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 2. I have gone through the judgment dated 2.5.2008. In para 12 of the judgment, a finding has been recorded that Fouju Ram had raised construction in between the years 1981 – 84. The suit was filed in the year 1986. There is nothing on record that the appellant objected to the construction raised by Fouju Ram by encroaching her 9 square yards land. The acquiescence of the petitioner regarding construction raised by Fouju Ram is clear from her writing Ext. PW-4/A when she agreed to raise common wall in between the house of Fouju Ram and her own house. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pleas of estoppel and acquiescence are not available to the respondents against petitioner true owner and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to decree of possession on the basis of title. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring his case within the well known parameters of review, no error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants to submit that the view taken by this Court in judgment dated 2.5.2008 is wrong, is no ground for reviewing the judgment dated 2.5.2008. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. July 8, 2009.(GR)