CHHAVI RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as common question of fact and law are involved in these petitions.

(2.) THE property in dispute is alleged to have been encroached upon by the petitioners. As a prelude, to the issuance of show cause notices upon the petitioners, under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), calling upon them to show cause as to why they be not evicted from the land in dispute, the halqua Kanungo, with the aid of halqua Patwari concerned had carried out demarcations of the land/property in dispute. In sequel to the demarcations, it was detected that the petitioners had constructed/raised, shops/house/orchard on the land in dispute. Pursuant to the petitioners having been served with notices to show cause as to why they be not evicted from the land/property in dispute, they appeared before the Collector -cum Divisional Forest Officer concerned exercising powers under the Act of 1971. The Officer(s), aforesaid, after having permitted the petitioners as well as the respondents, to, adduce evidence in support of their respective claims, on a perusal of the evidence as adduced on behalf of the parties at contest, as also, after having given them full opportunity of being heard, rendered Annexure(s) P -1 (in CWP Nos. 2180 and 1907 of 2014) and Annexure(s) P -3 (in CWP Nos. 2521 and 2889 of 2014). A perusal of the orders, passed by the Collector -cum -Divisional Forest Officer, divulges that the petitioners had contended before the officer, who rendered the aforesaid orders, (a) the fact of theirs having acquired title to the suit property by way of adverse possession; (b) that the demarcations having been untenably carried out, in as much, as they having not been carried out by the Assistant Collector of either grade who otherwise are empowered, to demarcate the property/land in dispute, rather, theirs having been unwarrantably carried out by the Kanungo. The Officers, who rendered the orders aforesaid discountenanced the above contention raised before them by the petitioners, consequently, under aforesaid vitiated annexures, the petitioners were illegally ordered to be evicted from the property in dispute.

(3.) THE frontal attack, which has been launched before this Court at the instance of the petitioners, against the impugned orders, rendered by the Divisional Forest Officer and Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, are that the findings of the demarcating officers comprised in the demarcation reports, which sequelled the detection of their having encroached upon the suit property/land in dispute being unreliable as well as discardable in law, in as much as, it, in the face of the land/property of the petitioners, being contiguous or adjoining to the land/property in dispute, hence, enjoined the Assistant Collector of either grade to carry out the demarcation, whereas, theirs having been carried out by the Kanungo, renders them to be legally un -worthwhile, as well as, theirs findings untenable and legally frail, for them to form any foundation, for any reliance, thereupon. The above contention, as raised before the authorities, who rendered the impugned orders, was considered in detail. The reasons, afforded by the authorities below, while dispelling them, do not apparently suffer from any vice of infirmity of misappraisal of any material on record. In addition, it also ought to be mentioned that the petitioners omitted to challenge the findings recorded against them, in, the demarcation reports furnished by the Kanungo at the earliest, hence, they are now estopped from assailing their tenability. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced misplaced submission(s) qua the tenability of the demarcations as carried out by the Kanungo, who was purportedly disempowered by the instructions issued by the Revenue Department to carry out such demarcation, in case, the land/property of the petitioners adjoins or is contiguous, to, the property/land owned by the respondent -State. However, the petitioners have omitted to place on record any jamabandi displaying the fact of theirs being owners of the land contiguous to the land/property in dispute. Obviously, at the out set, the bedrock of their submission, founders qua the findings, as recorded by the demarcating officers, being unreliable with the demarcations having been carried out by purportedly un -authorized officers, in as much, as, theirs land/property adjoining or contiguous to the land/property in dispute owned by the respondents -State. On the contrary, the non substantiation by them of theirs owning land/property in contiguity to the property/land in dispute debars them from assailing the demarcations of the land/property in dispute by the Revenue Officers concerned, who then for non substantiation by the petitioners for the above fact, empowered under law to carry out the demarcations. Apart from the above, the petitioners omitted to challenge the findings, recorded by the demarcating officer, at the earliest. Besides, in the face of instructions comprised in Notification dated 13th September, 2012, issued to revenue officers, by the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, mandating that it is open, for, even a Kanungo and or a consultant, to, carry out the demarcation of government lands adjoining private lands and the findings recorded/obtained by the Kanungo being liable to be challenged by way of preferment of objections at the earliest, before the Assistant Collector of either grade which the petitioners omitted to do so, renders open an inference that the demarcations, as carried out, assuming that the land of the petitioners adjoins or is contiguous to the land/property in dispute, by Field Kanungo, were valid demarcations. Even if, the petitioners were aggrieved, by the findings recorded against them by the Field Kanungo, they were, under the instructions, referred to hereinabove, empowered to prefer objections at the earliest which they omitted to do so. The omission on the part of the petitioners, to prefer objections, before the Assistant Collector of either grade, conveys theirs having acquiesced to the findings, hence, the legal embargo of estoppel, baulks them from now contesting the findings recorded by the Field Kanungo. Obviously, at this stage, the findings of the demarcating officers, cannot be challenged. Besides, it can, hence, be invincibly concluded that the demarcations of the land/property in dispute were wholly tenable.