2026:HHC:35261 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.896 of 2025 Decided on: 20th August, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Madhu Vats …..Petitioner Versus Narinder Kumar .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, affirming the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Collector, Sub-Division Palampur. In the aforesaid order, the Collector had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, thereby upholding the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Palampur, District Kangra. 2. The case:- 2(i). Respondent moved an application for demarcating the land comprised in Khata No.261, Khatauni 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:35261 No.389, Khasra No.1843/683, measuring 0-04-20 hectares, situated at Mohal Aima, Hadbast No.212, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra as per the jamabandi for the year 2012-13. The demarcation application was moved before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Palampur, District Kangra. On the aforesaid application, the Assistant Collector First Grade, Palampur vide order dated 22.02.2022, appointed one Sh. Lachhman Dass Koundal, a retired Tehsildar, as Local Commissioner to visit the spot and demarcate the land in question. 2(ii). Against the above order of appointing a Local Commissioner for demarcating the land, present petitioner filed an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act before the Collector, Sub-Division Palampur, District Kangra. Petitioner’s objection to the demarcation of the land, which has also been urged in the instant writ petition, is primarily on the ground that the land in question cannot be demarcated as according to learned counsel for the petitioner, khangi taksim was carried out of the joint land owned by the parties in the year 1988, in terms of which, access to the land that came to be allotted in petitioner’s favour, viz. Khasra No.1840/683, was through ‘two meters’ in Khasra No.1843/683, as depicted at Annexure P-5. 3 2026:HHC:35261 However, while attesting the mutation, an error crept in at one place; Instead of 16 meters, 18 meters were written, thereby creating a difference of two meters, therefore, demarcation could not be given without correction of the tatima. 2(iii). The Sub-Division Collector observed in the impugned order dated 16.06.2023 that the petitioner had already moved a separate case for the aforesaid correction of the alleged incorrect entry. That case, bearing No.43 of 2018, had already been dismissed on 05.09.2022. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 16.06.2023, petitioner’s appeal was also dismissed. 2(iv). The reasoning given by the Sub-Divisional Collector was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 08.02.2024 while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.06.2023. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on considering the case file, I do not find any good ground, warranting interference with the impugned orders. Respondent had moved an application simply for demarcating his land. In the said application, the Assistant Collector First Grade, Palampur had appointed Local 4 2026:HHC:35261 Commissioner on 22.08.2022 for the purpose of demarcating the land. Petitioner is carrying the torch against this order on the ground that revenue entries are wrong. In case the petitioner had any grievance with respect to alleged wrong recording of entries in the revenue record, his remedies lay somewhere else in some different forum. It has come in the impugned orders passed by the Sub- Division Collector as also by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) that Case No.43 of 2018 instituted by the petitioner for the aforesaid correction, had been dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Collector on 05.09.2022. Furthermore, Revision Petition No.179 of 2023 instituted by the petitioner against the order dated 05.09.2022 was also dismissed on 26.09.2023. Financial Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, was justified in drawing the conclusion that mutation No.380, attested on 11.05.1988, cannot be allowed to be collaterally challenged again in the demarcation proceedings. The petitioner is again raising the same issue of there being incorrect revenue entries in recording the measurements of khasra numbers in Aks Musabi & Shajra Kistwar. 4. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 5 2026:HHC:35261 16.06.2023 passed by the Collector, Sub-Division Palampur, District Kangra, as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh on 08.02.2024. This writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 20, 2026 Judge Mukesh