2026:HHC:25718 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.542 of 2024 Decided on: 29.06.2026 Executive Engineer, HPPWD ….Petitioner Versus Promila Devi & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner and for proforma respondent No.2. For the respondents: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral) The present petition arises out of order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., dated 25.04.2024, whereby the execution petition, as preferred by the respondent No.1 under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC for enforcing the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010, passed in Civil Suit No.111/2007, titled Promila Devi vs. The State of H.P. & another, came to be allowed. 22026:HHC:25718 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the respondent filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and, in the alternative, for mandatory injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. on 06.06.2007. As per the case of the plaintiff, it was alleged that the suit land bearing Khata No.95 min, Khatauni No.154 min, Khasra Nos.266, 269, 270, 274, Kita 4, land measuring 0-16-62 hectares, as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99, situated in Tika Dhabriana, Tappa Bani, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, is owned and possessed by the respondent/plaintiff. It was stated in the plaint that the defendants are strangers to the suit land and have no right, title or interest over the same. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent that the defendants/State started digging the suit land with a view to widening and metalling the road over the same. When the plaintiff objected to the same, the defendants openly threatened that they would widen the road over the suit land and would not desist from their illegal design. 3. The said suit was contested by the present petitioner/defendants by filing written statement and took preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action costs etc. On merits, it was stated that the suit land adjoins to the land comprised in Khasra Nos.263 and 175, over which a 32026:HHC:25718 road was constructed in the year 2003. It was the case of the defendants that they never dug up the suit land in any manner. Hence, the question of raising objections by the plaintiff does not arise at all. 4. The learned trial Court framed the issues in the said suit on 04.08.2007, and the parties were directed to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. Vide its judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010, the learned trial Court, decreed the suit as filed by the plaintiff/respondent by passing a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, and in alternative, for mandatory injunction against the defendants. It was ordered that the defendants are restrained from causing any further interference over the suit land comprised in Khata No.95 min, Khatauni No.154 min, Khasra Nos.266, 269, 270, 274, Kita 4, land measuring 0-16-62 hectares, as per jamabandi for the year 1998- 99, situated in Tika Dhabriana, Tappa Bani, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. Further, the defendants were directed to restore the suit land, as depicted in Khasra No.266/1 in demarcation report Ext. PW-1/B, Aks Tatima Ext. PW-1/C and Field Book Ext. PW-1/D, to its original condition at their own costs. It was further directed that demarcation report Ext. PW-1/B, Aks Tatima Ext. PW-1/C and Field Book Ext. PW-1/D shall form part of the decree. 42026:HHC:25718 5. The plaintiff/decree holder instituted a petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC before the learned trial Court on the grounds that on 04.09.2014 due to heavy rain, there was land slide over the suit land. Respondent No.2, the Executive Engineer, HP PWD, in connivance with Smt. Biasan Devi, threw the soil of the petitioner’s land into the land of Smt. Biasan and started constructing road over the suit land forcibly and illegally by violating the decree dated 29.01.2010. It has been stated in the application that the present petitioner/JDs were warned that there is a decree against them and they should desist from this practice and should not make road over the suit land by forcibly removing the soil and trees of the petitioner from his land. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC be allowed and appropriate action be taken against the defendants/JDs. 6. The present petitioner/JDs filed a reply to the application and denied all the averments as made in the petition. Learned Executing Court vide its impugned order dated 25.04.2024, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/DH and it was ordered that the Collector concerned shall enforce the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.111/2007, titled Promila Devi vs. State of H.P. & another. It 52026:HHC:25718 was further ordered that the costs of the same shall be payable by the present petitioner i.e. State of H.P. through District Collector and the Executive Engineer, H.P. PWD, Barsar. It was ordered that despite the passing of more than 14 years, the defendants/JDs have evaded its obedience. Therefore, compensation of Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be paid in favour of plaintiff/DH and against the defendants/JDs. Further, it was ordered that the Collector shall trace the property of the State and the Executive Engineer, H.P. PWD, Barsar, and attach the same until payment of aforesaid costs, compensation as well as costs of implementation of decree. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the Executive Engineer, H.P. PWD, Division Barsar, District Mandi, H.P. has filed the present petition, assailing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The case was listed before this court on 21.05.2026, and on the said date, the following order was passed: “9. Feeling dissatisfied, the present petitioner/JD has approached this Court. 10. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous, illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that despite placing on record copy of 62026:HHC:25718 demarcation report Ex. Ry, the learned trial Court ignored the same and passed the impugned order which is totally contrary to the factual position on the spot. He submits that there is no encroachment over the suit land nor any road exits over the suit land. 11. The aforesaid contention of the State has been vehemently refuted by Mr. Tarun Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1. He submits that report which has been appended with the present petition, Annexure P-9, dated 12.03.2018 is liable to be ignored, since the same has not been proved in accordance with law. He submits that the parties are governed by the findings as rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barsar in judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010, whereby the suit filed by the present respondent was decreed. 12. During the course of arguments, it was agreed upon by both the parties that in order to resolve or determine the point in controversy, some revenue officer may be appointed to demarcate the suit land in order to find out whether the judgment and decree which was passed by the learned trial Court on 29.01.2010 has been violated or same has not been implemented on the spot. 13. It has been agreed upon by both the parties that Tehsildar, Barsar be appointed as Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land. Both the parties also agree that the report, which will be furnished by the Local Commissioner/Tehsildar, Barsar, shall be acceptable to both the parties and none of the parties shall file any objection qua the same. 72026:HHC:25718 14. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, Tehsildar, Barsar is appointed as Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land. The Local Commissioner i.e. Tehsildar, Barsar is directed to visit the spot to verify the factual position on the spot and to specifically report whether the judgment and decree which was passed by the learned trial Court on 29.01.2010 has been implemented or whether the present petitioner/State has violated the same or same has not been implemented by the JDs on the spot. He shall furnish his report before this Court on or before 25 th June, 2026. 15. The parties shall bear in equal proportion the expenses of the Local Commissioner. The fees of the Local Commissioner is assessed at Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the parties to the Local Commissioner on the spot before conducting the demarcation. 16. Registry to send a copy of the present order to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur and Tehsildar, Barsar for necessary compliance.” 8. During the course of arguments on the previous date, learned Deputy Advocate General had vehemently relied upon Annexure P-9, the report of Field Kanungo, whereby it has been stated that on the spot, the partial portion i.e. Khasra No.266/1 of Khasra No.266 does not fall in the existing road. It has been mentioned in the report that Khasra No.266 has already been left out by Public Works Department, as found during the 82026:HHC:25718 investigation. It was contended by learned Deputy Advocate General that once the judgment passed by learned trial Court has been fully complied with and there does not exist any road over the land bearing Khasra No.266, therefore, there is no question of any violation in any manner. 9. With the consent of the parties, Tehsildar Barsar, namely, Ms.Priyanka was directed to demarcate the suit land in order to determine and adjudicate the controversy in hand. 10. Today, Tehsildar is present in Court and has placed on record a compliance affidavit. As per the same, it has been pointed out that no portion of the path was found existing over Khasra No.266. The report of Local Commissioner reads as follows: “From the demarcation carried out on the spot, the following facts emerge: 1. The demarcation has been conducted strictly in accordance with the revenue record and Aks Musavi after fixing permanent reference points. 2. The reference points and measurements fully tally with the revenue record. 3. Khasra No. 263 is recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta (Share Aam) belonging to the villagers. 4. Khasra No. 266 is adjacent to Khasra No. 263. 5. The kacha path exists over Khasra No. 263 only. 6. No portion of the kacha path was found existing over Khasra No. 266. It is further respectfully submitted that during the course of the present 92026:HHC:25718 demarcation proceedings, neither the petitioner nor the respondent produced on the spot any separate tatima or field map specifically pertaining to Khasra No. 266/1 deducted in earlier demarcation. In the absence of the tatima/map of Khasra No. 266/1, it was not possible to independently verify or physically reconcile the boundaries allegedly derived during any earlier demarcation proceedings. However, notwithstanding aforesaid limitation, the undersigned Local Commissioner has proceeded strictly on the basis of the available revenue record, Aks Musavi, and the permanent fixed reference points jointly identified by the parties and the revenue officials on the spot. The demarcation has accordingly been carried out by adopting scientific measurements from duly established reference points, without relying upon any unproduced or unverified earlier tatima. It is further clarified that non-production of tatima/map of Khasra No. 266/1 by either party is a material circumstance, as it indicates that any assertion based upon earlier demarcation sketches, if any, remains unsubstantiated on record at the time of present inspection. Therefore, the findings recorded in this report are strictly confined to the field position as it existed on the date of spot inspection and the revenue record made available on the spot.” 11. The Tehsildar, Barsar has categorically stated in the Court that over the entire Khasra No.266, there is no encroachment of any kind by any quarter. She has also submitted in the Court that no encroachment, including over Khasra 102026:HHC:25718 No.266/1, was reported by the revenue officer. She submitted that when on the earlier occasion during the pendency of the suit, the demarcation was carried out by the then revenue officer based upon the report when the encroachment was found then Khasra No.266/1 was carved out. However, as of today, she has stated in the Court that there is no encroachment of any kind over the said Khasra number. She has stated that the road is situated over Khasra No.263 and no portion of the road was found constructed over Khasra No.266 in any manner. Therefore, there is substance in the submission of learned Deputy Advocate General that the judgment stood complied with by the present petitioner/State, and there is no violation of any kind, especially in view of the report of Tehsildar, which is taken on record. 12. In the order dated 21.05.2026, it was agreed upon by the respective parties that they shall remain bound by the report and none of the parties shall file any objection qua the same. Therefore, on the basis of the report placed on record and in view of submissions made by the Tehsildar, Barsar, it is found that there is no encroachment on the spot. The road has been constructed by the State over Khasra No.263, which is Gair Mumkin Rasta (share Aam) belonging to the villagers. Since the 112026:HHC:25718 suit land is free from encroachment, the question of disobedience does not arise. 13. Consequently, in view of above and in light of report prepared by Tehsildar, Barsar, with respect to demarcation conducted on the suit land with the consent of the parties, there is force in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is allowed, and the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. dated 25.04.2024 is quashed and set aside. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( Romesh Verma ) Judge June 29, 2026 (vt)