IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.6190 of 2024 Decided on: 21.04.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Lekh Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. Naresh K Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Respondent No.8 ex-parte. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge On an application moved by respondent No.7, Sh. Garja Ram, demarcation of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 220/186/23 and 24, situated at Mouza Tundwin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. was carried out. Demarcation report was prepared by the competent Revenue 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - Authority. Petitioner’s objections against this report were dismissed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur on 14.10.2019. The order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur has been affirmed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Tehsil Ghumarwin on 20.04.2021 as also by the Divisional Commissioner [exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla] on 16.01.2024. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Demarcation of two khasra numbers in question was carried out by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur on 31.05.2018. At page 33 of the paper-book, is a combined statement made by Sh. Garja Ram Sh. Dandu Ram and Sh. Lekh Ram (present petitioner). This statement, was made on 31.05.2018. In terms of the statement as recorded by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, the aforesaid three individuals including the petitioner, accepted - 3 - the demarcation carried out at the spot. They expressed no objection to the demarcation conducted by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The makers of the statement also expressed that they had no reservation whatsoever to the demarcation conducted on the spot. It was on 17.01.2019 (page 35 of the paper-book) that petitioner filed his objections to the demarcation conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Ghumarwin, on 31.05.2018. The objections so preferred by the petitioner were rejected by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur on 14.10.2019. As noticed earlier, the order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, has been concurrently affirmed by the Collector Tehsil Ghumarwin on 20.04.2021 and by the Divisional Commissioner [exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla] on 16.01.2024. 4. The main thrust of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that during demarcation, three pucca points had not been fixed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. This objection has been factually discussed by the three Revenue - 4 - Authorities below and held against the petitioner. The Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, on considering the demarcation report of Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, has held that ‘pucca points’ A, B & C had been traced on the spot. Joint corner of Khasra Nos. 18, 19 and 20 had been marked as point ‘A’, joint corner of Khasra Nos. 18, 19 and 16 had been marked as point ‘B’ and joint corner of Khasra Nos. 24, 25 and 16 had been marked as point ‘C’ in the Musavi used for conducting the demarcation on the spot. Therefore, objections filed by the petitioner that pucca points had not been fixed in accordance with law for carrying out demarcation, was justly turned down. Further, the statement made by the petitioner at page 33 of the paper-book has not been disputed before me. In terms of the said statement recorded on 31.05.2018, petitioner had expressed his agreement with the demarcation as carried out on 31.05.2018 by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. Petitioner had expressly and unequivocally held out his having no objection to the demarcation as conducted on the - 5 - spot. It would be pertinent at this stage to note Section 107 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act that gives power to the revenue officers to define boundaries. The section reads as under: - “107. Power of Revenue Officers to define boundaries.- (1) A Revenue Officer may, for the purpose of framing any record or making any assessment under this Act or on the application of any person interested, define the limits of any estate, or of any holding, field or other portion of an estate, and may, for the purpose of indicating those limits, require survey-marks to be erected or repaired. (2) In defining the limits of any land under sub- section (1) the Revenue Officer may, cause survey- marks to be erected on any boundary already determined by, or by order of any Court, Revenue Officer or Forest Settlement Officer, or restore any survey-marks already set up by, or by order of any Court or any such Officer.” Following Sub-sections (3) to (7) were inserted in above Section 107 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act by way of the H.P. Land Revenue (Amendment) Act 2023 (07.12.2023): - “ (3) The Revenue Officer shall define the limits of boundaries mentioned in sub-section (1) by conducting measurements on the basis of the method of surveys used during the last settlement that is by triangulation system or square system or electronic total station system of measurement etc. as the case may be. (4) The Revenue Officer shall decide the proceedings of defining the boundaries within two months from the - 6 - date of filing of application thereof: Provided that for the reasons to be recorded in writing the time period may be extended by one month. (5) If the Revenue Officer fails to decide the case within the extended period, the proceedings shall not become invalid for final adjudication merely on the ground of lapse of the stipulated period. However the Revenue Officer shall submit a report in the manner as may be prescribed citing reasons for such delay to the officer under whose control he is subjected to and after considering the report and examining the record, if the Controlling Officer is satisfied that there were valid and genuine reasons for delay in deciding the case he may accept the report with no further action. In case the Controlling Officer is not satisfied with the report, he shall submit his observations to the Government for such action and in such manner as may be prescribed, against the erring officer. (6) If the Revenue Officer fails to submit a report required under sub-section (5), he shall be liable for an action under relevant service rules applicable to such officer after following due procedure. (7) If all the interested parties have agreed to and accepted the limits defined by the Revenue Officer under sub-section (1) and objections have not been raised by any of the interested party during the proceedings, no appeal shall lie against the order of the Revenue Officer in such proceedings.” Section 107(7) thus clearly provides that in case all interested parties agree & accept the demarcation and no objection is raised during demarcation, no appeal shall lie - 7 - against the order of revenue officer in such proceedings. This provision also clearly debars the petitioner in objecting to the demarcation after accepting the same. The petitioner had accepted the demarcation report at the spot on 31.05.2018 and filed his objections to the same on 17.01.2019. Apart from petitioner having accepted the demarcation report on the spot, the Revenue Authorities have concurrently returned findings that demarcation had been conducted after fixing three pucca points in accordance with law. 5. In view of above, no case for interference with the impugned orders is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 21, 2026 R.Atal