IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 176 of 2000. Date of decision: 17.12.2009 Sh.Jagat Ram …. Appellant Versus Sh.Partap Singh ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Sh.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. _______________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction or super structure over the land comprising Khata No.152, Khatoni No.162, Khasra No.943/597 measuring 1 Kanal 6 marlas situate in Tika Doh, Tappa Mawa, 2 Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’). According to the plaintiff, he was owner in possession of suit land and the defendant is a trespasser. According to the plaintiff, the defendant forcibly dug up the suit land and collected material for construction of a building during the second week of July, 1987. The defendant contested the suit. According to the defendant, he was not raising any construction over the suit land but was raising the construction over Khasra No.938/596 measuring 5 marlas owned and possessed by him. A Local Commissioner was appointed by the learned Trial Court who found that the defendant had encroached upon one marla of land out of the suit land. The defendant filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner but the same were dismissed. The learned Trial Court relying upon the report of the Local Commissioner decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of this one marla of land after demolition of the construction of the super 3 structure raised by the defendant over the same. The learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the finding that the defendant had encroached upon one marla out of the suit land. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court held that keeping in view the fact that the defendant had raised two pillars and a beam, it would not be in the interest of justice to order demolition of the super structure but the plaintiff should be compensated by way of cost. It accordingly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff. This has given rise to the present appeal. I have heard Sh.Vinod Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sh.Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. In my view, no question of law is involved in the case. Both the Courts below have come to a finding of fact that the defendant has encroached upon one marla of land. One marla is equal to 20 square metres. On this one marla, the plaintiff has raised two pillars and laid a beam. In case he is directed to demolish the same, his entire structure would fall down. Therefore, I am 4 of the considered view that the learned Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that this was a fit case where compensation should be awarded instead of granting a decree for demolition and possession. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. December 17, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge