RIKHI RAM Vs. PRATAP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE herein is to the order dated 4.2.2014, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Hamirpur, in an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, whereby the prayer for appointment of local commissioner has been declined and the application dismissed.

(2.) THE subject matter of dispute is the land entered in Khata No. 56 min, Khatauni No. 70 min, Khasra No. 1530/317 measuring 1K -6M and Khasra No. 1545/317 measuring 6K -1M situated in Tikka Dhirar, Mauza Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur (H.P.)

(3.) THE petitioner -plaintiff had earlier filed an application for appointment of Local Commissioner, which was ordered to be dismissed on 17.2.2011 on the ground that the parties at that time had not led the evidence. Now the petitioner -plaintiff has produced the evidence. He himself has stepped in the witness box and examined Shri Surjit Kumar PW -2, a retired Kanoongo. The plaintiff and also Surjit Kumar have admitted that on account of overlapping of land on the spot, it is not possible to conduct the demarcation. PW -2 Surjit Kumar has further stated that it is he who had carried out the demarcation during his posting as Kanoongo in Nagrota circle and submitted the report Ex. PW -2/B. As per his version, though efforts were made to demarcate the land, however in view of the overlapping, which according to him, caused due to preparation of improper settlement record and that such overlapping is qua Tika Nagrota, villages Ghilar and Sauta, therefore, it was not possible to demarcate the land.