2025:HHC:20199 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.260/2024 Date of Decision: 27th June, 2025. Ram Nath .....Petitioner Versus Tilak Raj and Others. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to order dated 23.04.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge-cum-JMFC, Barsar, District Hamirpur, HP in CMA No.752/23, vide which objections filed to the Local Commissioner’s report dated 26.03.2024, have been rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and impugned order. 3. The Local Commissioner had been appointed to demarcate Khasra Nos.350 and 356. As per the demarcation report, after demarcating the aforesaid two khasra Nos., it was found on the spot that on Khasra No.350/1 area measuring 0-00-26 hectares there existed a danga (retaining wall) and insofar as Khasra No.356/1 area 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:20199 measuring 0-00-08 hectare is concerned, there was danga (retaining wall) under consideration. As per the report, the aforesaid were found in possession of the present petitioner/defendant. 4. The petitioner agreed to the demarcation at the spot. He further admitted to have been found in possession of some portion of the suit land, detailed hereinabove and he even admitted the extent of his possession on the suit land, in terms of the demarcation report. No objections were raised by the present petitioner before the Local Commissioner during the demarcation process. 5. Besides the aforesaid, at the commencement of the demarcation process, the instrument used for making the measurements were duly got verified from the parties concerned. The same were found to be proper, in order and correct. Statement to this extent of the present petitioner was got recorded. Subsequent thereto, in terms of the instructions of the Financial Commissioner, for the guidance of revenue officers and Kanungo for the purpose of delimitation of boundaries (cases under Section 107 of the HP Land Revenue Ac, 1954), three fixed points were located, the same is admitted by the parties including the present petitioner/defendant. 3 2025:HHC:20199 6. In respect of the aforesaid, a joint statement of parties was also recorded. On the basis of the fixed points, so located, point “A”, “B” & “C” were located. In locating the aforesaid points, due process was followed by the Local Commissioner. 7. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 8. Besides the aforesaid, in a supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 9. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated here-in- above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of 4 2025:HHC:20199 this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for interfering in the well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court, in the case at hand. 10. In view of the above-stated, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly and as a consequence whereof report of the Local Commissioner Ext. LC-1, intimation/Itlahnama, Ex. LC-II, attendance report Ext. LC-III, statement qua jareb Ex. LC- IV, statement qua pucca bannas Ext. LC-V, Aks Ext. LC-VI, Statement qua acceptance of report Ext. LC-VII and Musavi Ext. LC-VIII, be read in evidence. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court below on 29.07.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 27th June, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)