KHEM CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) APPELLANTS -plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondents- defendants, alleging that there stood an old house on Khasra No.233, belonging to them, and that sometime in the year 1996 they started constructing a new house at the site of the old house and, while raising the construction of new house, they extended it towards Khasra No.235, which also belongs to them, but defendant- respondent No.3 Pratap Singh, the then Tehsildar, on being instigated by some unknown person, came to the spot on 24.6.1997 and started dismantling a portion of the house without affording any Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? opportunity of being heard to the plaintiffs. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs approached defendant No.3 for demarcation of their property but he dilly-dallied and ultimately they moved an application to the Additional District Magistrate, in the capacity of Revenue Officer, who deputed a Kanoongo to carry out the demarcation and the Kanoongo on such demarcation found that the portion of the house, which had been dismantled, stood on Khasra No.233, belonging to the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove that one room of their house had been demolished. Trial Court placed reliance upon the demarcation report, on the basis of which defendant No.3 removed the alleged encroachment made by the plaintiffs on government land, bearing Khasra Nos. 230, 231 and 232. The trial Court rejected the demarcation report Ex. PW-7/A and Tatima Ex. PW-7/B relied upon by the plaintiffs, holding that Kanoongo was not competent to give demarcation with regard to government land.