In Land Disputes, Only Demarcation Issue Should Be Reconsidered If Report Is Irregular, Entire Suit Need Not Be Remanded: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that if the Local Commissioner’s demarcation report is found to be irregular, only the report should be sent back for a fresh demarcation. The entire suit need not be remanded for reconsideration.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “if the report of the Local Commissioner was suffering from an irregularity i.e., want of following the applicable instructions, the proper course for the High Court was either to issue a fresh commission or to remand the matter for reconsideration but the entire suit could not have been dismissed for any irregularity on the part of Local Commissioner”.
Background Facts:
Naresh Kumar, the plaintiff, filed a civil suit before the Trial Court, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his land situated in District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. He alleged that defendants were attempting to raise construction and change the nature of the land.
As an alternative relief, the plaintiff sought a decree for possession, incase the defendants tried to encroach upon the land during the pendency of the suit.
The Trial Court partly decided in the favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from interfering with the land in any manner. However, it declined to grant possession, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendants had encroached the land during pendency of the suit. Also, the demarcation report of the land submitted by the plaintiff was discarded, as the demarcating officer had not followed the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner.
Aggrieved by the decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge, challenging the denial of possession. He also filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner for fresh demarcation of the land and to decide the suit afresh as per new demarcation report.
The District Judge allowed the application, appointed a Local Commissioner for fresh demarcation, and remanded the entire suit back to the Trial Court to decide the matter afresh as per new demarcation report.
Challenging the remand order passed by the District Judge, the defendant filed appeal before the High Court.
Contentions:
The defendant contended that the previous demarcation report was never formally set aside. Thus, a second demarcation was contrary to settled legal principles. It submitted that instead of remanding back the entire case, the district judge should have only directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner and then decided the case based on that report, after giving both parties an opportunity to present their case.
In response, the plaintiff submitted that the case involved a boundary dispute, which could not be resolved without proper and valid demarcation. Since the earlier demarcation report had been rejected on technical grounds, a fresh demarcation was necessary to decide the matter properly.
Findings:
In Ram Lal & others Vs. Salig Ram and others, (2020), the Supreme Court, held that “If the Local Commissioner’s report is found wanting in compliance with applicable instructions, it is only a matter of irregularity. This should result in obtaining a fresh report—not in the dismissal of the suit,”
The Court remarked that in boundary disputes, demarcation is essential, and technical irregularities in a demarcation report should not defeat substantive rights of the parties.
In Bali Ram v. Mela Ram (2002) and Prithi Singh v. Bakshi Ram (2006), the H.P. High Court “held that demarcation by a Local Commissioner is the only effective way to resolve disputes involving overlapping or adjoining land boundaries”.
Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and upheld the contention of the defendant that the entire matter should have not been remanded back. It limited the remand to the issue of demarcation and appointed the Tehsildar of the area as the Local Commissioner.
The Tehsildar was instructed to demarcate the suit land and determine its boundaries based on the existing revenue record, and to submit the report. The Trial Court was directed to decide the issue based on the new report, and other evidence already on record.
Case Name: Judhya Devi (since Deceased) & another v/s Naresh Kumar
Case No.: FAO No.32 of 2022
Date of Decision: 16.06.2025
For the Appellant : Mr.Atharv Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate.
