Court Orders Fresh Demarcation by Retired Senior Revenue Officer After Finding Procedural Irregularities in Local Commissioner’s Report
Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside an order passed by the executing court accepting a demarcation report in a long-standing property dispute and directed fresh demarcation after following the principles of natural justice.
Justice Virender Singh of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, while deciding CMPMO No. 475 of 2025 titled Kamla Devi vs Manta Devi & Others on 30.09.2026, allowed the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kullu. The High Court held that even while exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, procedural fairness and principles of natural justice cannot be ignored. The Court found serious procedural concerns regarding the manner in which the demarcation proceedings were conducted, particularly relating to notice to parties and the alleged presence of a deceased person in official proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the executing court with directions to appoint a fresh Local Commissioner, preferably a retired senior Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar, to conduct demarcation afresh in accordance with law.
Background of Property Dispute
The proceedings before the High Court arose from a civil dispute between Kamla Devi and Manta Devi & Others concerning ownership, possession and alleged encroachment over a parcel of land situated in Kullu District. The petitioner, Kamla Devi, approached the High Court challenging the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu in Civil Suit No. 7 of 2024 titled Manta Devi versus Kamla Devi & Others.
By the said order, the trial court had dismissed objections filed against the Local Commissioner’s report and accepted the demarcation report dated 04.01.2025. The dispute had a long procedural history, including earlier proceedings before the High Court.
Original Suit Filed by Manta Devi
The dispute originated from a civil suit filed by Manta Devi seeking declaration and possession concerning certain land situated at Phati Dhalpur Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession over land measuring 4 Biswa comprised in Khasra No. 3292/559, contained in Khatauni No. 780 of Khata No. 610.
She also sought declaration regarding correction of revenue entries and claimed that certain portions of the land had been encroached upon by the defendants by raising structures. The defendants contested the suit and disputed the claims raised by the plaintiff. They challenged the maintainability of the suit and denied the allegations made regarding possession and encroachment.
Earlier Findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court
After completion of pleadings and evidence, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.2007. The Trial Court declared that the plaintiff was owner-in-possession of the land measuring 4 Biswa and also held that certain revenue entries relating to dimensions of the land were incorrect. However, the Trial Court declined the relief of possession, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove encroachment by the defendants.
Against the said judgment, Manta Devi preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which was dismissed on 24.04.2008. Thereafter, the matter reached the High Court through RSA No. 372 of 2008.
High Court Earlier Directed Fresh Demarcation
While deciding RSA No. 372 of 2008, the High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court. The High Court directed appointment of a Local Commissioner for carrying out fresh demarcation in accordance with law and thereafter deciding the prayer regarding possession on the basis of the demarcation report. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 25.09.2023. In pursuance of these directions, further proceedings were initiated before the executing court.
Appointment of Local Commissioner and Demarcation Proceedings
Initially, the executing court appointed the Tehsildar, Kullu as Local Commissioner on 06.01.2024. The Local Commissioner submitted a report, but objections were filed against the same. The executing court considered the objections on 11.11.2024 and set aside the earlier report. Thereafter, the Naib Tehsildar, Kullu was appointed as Local Commissioner with directions to conduct demarcation as per the changed Tatima attached with Mutation No. 6398.
The subsequent demarcation report was submitted on 20.02.2025.
After objections were filed, the executing court dismissed the objections and accepted the demarcation report dated 04.01.2025 vide order dated 04.08.2025. Aggrieved by this order, Kamla Devi approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Challenge Before High Court
The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.08.2025 mainly on the ground that the executing court had wrongly accepted the demarcation report despite procedural defects. The petitioner argued that the Local Commissioner had failed to conduct demarcation in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court in RSA No. 372 of 2008. One of the major objections raised was that the demarcation proceedings were shown to have been conducted in the presence of Phunchog Dolma, who had already expired on 28.05.2024.
The petitioner argued that no proper notice had been issued to the legal representatives of the deceased defendant.
Alleged Defects in Notice and Demarcation Process
Before the High Court, it was argued that the Local Commissioner had adopted an improper method by allegedly giving intimation through WhatsApp. The petitioner contended that:
- Names of legal representatives were not mentioned;
- Mobile numbers or WhatsApp details were not recorded;
- No proper proof of service was available;
- The procedure followed during demarcation was unclear.
It was also argued that the report did not properly explain how measurements were conducted at the spot and whether permanent points were fixed before carrying out demarcation.
Respondent’s Defence
The order records that the respondent supported the order passed by the executing court rejecting the objections. The respondent argued that several houses existed at the spot and therefore the triangular system could not be followed. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the High Court in RSA No. 148 of 2009 titled Ramesh Chand vs Basant Ram.
It was also argued that notices had been served and mere absence of parties would not invalidate the proceedings.
High Court Finds Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
After examining the record, Justice Virender Singh found substance in the objections raised by the petitioner. The High Court noted that before conducting demarcation, the Local Commissioner was required to issue notice to the parties to the execution proceedings. The Court observed that the record mentioned that legal representatives of deceased Phunchog Dolma were informed through WhatsApp and telephone, but:
- Their names were not mentioned;
- Their mobile numbers were not recorded;
- No proper proof of service was available.
The Court further noticed that documents relating to fixing of permanent points mentioned the presence of Phunchog Dolma, despite the fact that she had already expired. The Court observed that this raised serious concerns regarding the manner in which the proceedings were conducted.
Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Ignore Fair Procedure
The High Court emphasised that although the jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited, it does not permit ignoring fundamental principles of fairness. The Court observed that merely because the matter was old or the demarcation was conducted pursuant to earlier directions of the High Court, the principles of natural justice could not be abandoned. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick & Another vs Ranahit Ghoshal & Others, particularly regarding jurisdictional error and procedural fairness.
High Court Allows Petition and Orders Fresh Demarcation
After considering the entire matter, the High Court allowed the petition filed by Kamla Devi. The order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the executing court was set aside. The matter was remanded back with directions to appoint a fresh Local Commissioner.
The High Court specifically directed that the Local Commissioner should be:
- A retired senior Revenue Officer;
- Not below the rank of Tehsildar;
- Required to conduct demarcation after following principles of natural justice and applicable rules.
The Court further directed that the entire process should be completed within three months, i.e., on or before 31.12.2026. Pasted markdown
Counsel Appearing Before High Court
For the petitioner:
Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sanjeevani Sood and Ms. Tamanna, Advocates.
For respondent No.1:
Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Srishti Negi, Advocate.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment in Kamla Devi vs Manta Devi & Others reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in execution proceedings involving property disputes. The Court did not decide the ultimate rights of the parties regarding ownership or possession but focused on the legality of the demarcation process adopted by the Local Commissioner. Finding procedural irregularities, particularly regarding notice and participation of affected parties, the High Court held that principles of natural justice cannot be ignored even while conducting demarcation proceedings pursuant to earlier court directions.
By ordering a fresh demarcation through a retired senior Revenue Officer and prescribing a timeline for completion, the Court ensured that the proceedings are conducted through a fair and transparent process before any further steps are taken in the property dispute.
LawDaily.org | Legal News & Court Updates