IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.713 of 2024 Decided on 12th August, 2025 Leela Devi and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 08.11.2024, Annexure P-7, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Case Registration CMA No.1400 of 2024, Reg. No.411/13 titled as Leela Devi and others Vs State of H.P. may kindly be set aside, in the interest of justice and fair play and the Local Commissioner may kindly be directed to given detail of length and width as well as area of the suit land covered under the road in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by learned Executing Court, in terms whereof, the objection filed by the petitioners against the report of the Local Commissioner stood dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also carefully gone through the order impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners is not per se against the report filed by the Local Commissioner, however, their grievance is that dimensions of the land owned by the petitioners, which have been used by the Judgment Debtors have not been spelled out in the report. 5. However, as pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General, a perusal of the report demonstrates that it is mentioned therein that 1/2 karam of the suit land has been used for the purpose of the construction of the road, which is behind the metalled road. 6. This Court is of the considered view that this description is not ambiguous and, therefore, in the light of the same, it cannot be said that the demarcation does not spells out the details of the land utilized by the State. Further, it is apparent 3 from the order under challenge that when the demarcation was carried out, petitioner, namely, Smt. Leela Devi was there and she was associated with the process of demarcation and her statement was also taken to the effect that she was satisfied with the said demarcation. Therefore, now the petitioners cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter with the intent of reopening it, because, nothing prevented the petitioner from having her statement recorded to the effect that the she was not satisfied with the demarcation. 7. In the light of the above observations, as this Court does not finds any perversity in the order impugned, the same is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12, 2025 (Vinod)