2026:HHC:18120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7070 of 2026 Decided on: 19th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gian Chand …..Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Mayank Verma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The case 2(i). Predecessor-in-interest of private respondents presented an application under Section 107 of the 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 2026:HHC:18120 Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act for demarcation of land bearing Khasra No.1888, situated at Mohal Jarol, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Sundernagar. One Sh. Shyam Lal, a retired Kanungo, was appointed as Local Commissioner for demarcating the land. It is an admitted position that the Local Commissioner telephonically informed the petitioner through concerned Patwari to appear on the spot on 29.06.2016 for the purpose of demarcation of land. It is also an admitted position that despite intimation, the petitioner did not appear on the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that information through telephonic means was not a permissible mode of communicating the date of demarcation or calling for presence of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner did not appear on the spot. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the petitioner had the information about demarcation to be conducted on the subject land on 29.06.2016 and he chose not to attend the demarcation. 2(ii). Local Commissioner on 29.06.2016, demarcated the land bearing Khasra Nos.1888/1 & 1888/2, as Khasra No.1888 had been divided in two parts during partition 3 2026:HHC:18120 proceedings. During demarcation, predecessor-in-interest of private respondents and some other persons were reported to be present on the spot. The Local Commissioner furnished his demarcation report to the Assistant Collector First Grade. 2(iii). Petitioner, at this stage, filed objections to the demarcation report. The Assistant Collector First Grade, after hearing the petitioner, rejected his objections on 30.05.2017 and accepted the demarcation report. 2(iv). Petitioner assailed the order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Sundernagar before the Collector. In the interest of justice and at the joint request of parties, the Collector directed the Assistant Collector Second Grade (Naib Tehsildar), Dehar to again demarcate the land on the spot. The Assistant Collector Second Grade demarcated the land on 23.10.2018 in presence of petitioner and also predecessor-in-interest of private respondents. Prior to demarcation, the statements of petitioner, predecessor-in-interest of private respondents as also some other local persons present on the spot were recorded. 2(v). Petitioner did not accept the demarcation carried out by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Dehar 4 2026:HHC:18120 on 23.10.2018. The demarcation report was submitted by the Assistant Collector Second Grade to the Collector, i.e. before the Court where petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 30.05.2017 was pending. 2(vi). On receipt of second demarcation report, i.e. conducted by the Assistant Collector Second Grade on 23.10.2018, the petitioner filed his objections against the same. On 29.06.2019, the petitioner again requested for conducting spot inspection/demarcation. The case file reflects that the Collector benevolently accepted petitioner’s this request also. He directed the Field Kanungo concerned to visit the spot on 03.07.2019. The Field Kanungo visited the spot on the given date, but the petitioner did not appear on spot. To a query of the Court as to why the petitioner chose not to appear on the spot on 03.07.2019, i.e. the date given by the Collector, no answer could be furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner. The case file records that the Field Kanungo on 03.07.2019, once again verified the spot position and found the boundary marks fixed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade to be in existence on the spot as per the demarcation report furnished by him. 5 2026:HHC:18120 2(vii). Taking note of all the above factors, the Collector dismissed petitioner’s appeal on 09.07.2019. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi on 07.01.2026. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Petitioner’s revision petition against the order passed by the Collector on 09.07.2019, in the given facts and circumstances, was justly dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The facts of this case lead to an inference that the petitioner has been adopting dilatory tactics to drag the matter. Despite telephonic information admittedly conveyed to him to remain present on the spot on 29.06.2016 for the purpose of carrying out demarcation of Khasra No.1888, the petitioner did not cause his appearance. Petitioner’s objection to the demarcation report was dismissed and the aforesaid demarcation conducted on 29.06.2016 was accepted by the Assistant Collector First Grade on 30.05.2017. Subsequently, in petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 30.05.2017, the Collector, at the joint request of parties, ordered to get the land demarcated once again through the Assistant Collector Second Grade. 6 2026:HHC:18120 The Assistant Collector Second Grade demarcated the land on 23.10.2018 in presence of the parties including the petitioner and submitted his report to the Collector. The petitioner filed his objections and requested for again conducting the spot inspection/demarcation. Even this request of the petitioner was accepted by the Collector and he directed the concerned Field Kanungo to visit the spot on 03.07.2019. Despite the order passed by the Collector, petitioner admittedly did not appear on the spot on 03.07.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition has tried to project that the Field Kanungo did not visit the spot on 03.07.2019, however, learned counsel could not answer the question as to whether the petitioner ever raised this issue either before the Collector or before the Divisional Commissioner, exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals). From the perusal of impugned orders, no such objection/assertion even seems to have been taken/made by the petitioner. In any case, the land has been demarcated time and again at the request of the petitioner. No error in the demarcation has been found in the concurrent orders passed by the three fact-finding authorities. 7 2026:HHC:18120 5. In the given facts and circumstances, no case for interference with the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi is made out. This writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 19, 2026 Judge Mukesh