2025:HHC:13600 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.152 of 2025 Date of decision: 09.05.2025 Hans Raj and others ……Petitioners Versus Hem Raj ……….Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1 : For the petitioners: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the respondent: Nemo. ________________________________________________________ Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing therein the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 13.11.2024, whereby it dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for appointment of Local Commissioner for carrying out demarcation. 2 As per the petitioners, the respondent is a stranger and his land adjoins to the suit land comprised in Khasra No.399, measuring 0-2-15 bigha. It was further 1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ? 2 contended before the learned Court below that the respondent was claiming the suit land on the basis of the demarcation conducted by the retired Kanungo, which demarcation has not been carried out in accordance with law, more particularly, instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner and also had-shikni rules provided in the High Court rules and orders. The petitioners had filed objections on 24.01.2017 against the demarcation, which was pending consideration before the A.C. 2nd Grade Balh. 3 The learned Trial Court, after taking note of the fact that there was already a demarcation conducted earlier on 19.12.2016 available on record and another demarcation, which the petitioners had obtained on 03.04.2018, held that there was no requirement conducting demarcation for the third time. 4 These factual aspects have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. After all, there must be an end to litigation. 5 In addition to the aforesaid, the record also reveals that there was probably another demarcation got conducted but this time it was at the behest of the respondent and such demarcation was carried out 3 somewhere in the year 2017, which again was in favour of the respondent, to which written objections were filed by the petitioner before the A.C. 2nd Grade, Balh, District Mandi on 24.01.2017. 6 Once there are as many as two demarcation reports available on record and one of them for the time being was in favour of the petitioners, obviously, the petitioners cannot use a court as a tool to sub-serve its purpose and it is for the petitioners to lead specific evidence to prove that the respondent as a matter of fact had encroached over the land belonging to the petitioners. 7 In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated here-in-above, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, it goes without saying that the observations made in this order are solely for the purpose of deciding the instant lis and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the instant lis without being influenced by any observations made in this order. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) 09th May, 2025 Judge (pankaj)