CMPMO/243/2026 on 29 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. : 243 of 2026 Decided on : 29.10.2026 Roop Chand

…Petitioner Versus Nikku Ram …Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Karam Pal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia,

Advocate.

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner­Roop Chand, has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 04.04.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. III, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Executing Court’), in Execution Petition No. 10 of 2017, titled as “Nikku Ram Vs Roop Chand”.

2. By way of order dated 04.04.2026, the learned Executing Court had issued the warrant of possession for 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

obtaining the possession of Khasra No. 403/1, after removing the encroachment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the documents annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under:­ 4.1 The Civil Suit bearing No. 182 of 1998, was filed by plaintiff Nikku Ram, against defendant Roop Chand. The said suit was decreed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. III Hamirpur, H.P., vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2005, by granting the following relief, to the plaintiff:­ “For the reasons recorded hereinabove, while discussing the aforesaid issues for determination, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed to the effect that he is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and the defendant is restrained from interfering over the suit land and the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction and possession by way of demolition is hereby dismissed as there was compromise between the parties regarding the construction of Danga and, moreover, the defendant has constructed the retaining wall for the protection of his house and using the same for the same purpose. Parties shall bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.”

5. The subject matter of the said lis is land bearing Khata No. 120 min, Khatauni No. 126 min, Khasra Nos. 402 and 403, measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas, situated in Village Chamned, Mouza Ugialta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). However, the plaintiff has filed the appeal before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, where his appeal has been allowed and decree of possession, by way of demolition/removal of danga shown in Khasra No. 403/1 i.e. part of the suit land measuring One Marla vide Tatima Ext. PW2/B is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

6. Admittedly, the judgment and decree so passed has attained finality. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the Execution Petition before the learned Executing Court. Thereafter, on 04.04.2009, when the report of the Local Commissioner was received, the objections were made, which were considered by the learned Executing Court and were dismissed and warrants of possession qua Khasra No. 403/1, after removing the objections were issued.

7. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the present petition has been filed.

8. Heard.

9. The warrants of possession were issued, on the basis of the demarcation conducted by the Local Commissioner i.e. Naib Tehsildar (Settlement), who has been appointed as Local Commissioner, in this case. The learned Executing Court has thereafter considered the objections so made to the report of Local Commissioner and thereafter the warrants of possession were issued. Report of the Local Commissioner is on the record, as Annexure P­9. In the report, it has specifically been mentioned that the possession of JD Roop Chand, over the land measuring one Marla, which has been shown in the tatima as Khasra No. 403/1, was found. In case, the revenue officer, who was appointed as Local Commissioner, measured the suit land, during the course of demarcation, he had measured other khasra numbers, does not make his report as defective, as, in order to ascertain the unauthorized possession of the JD, over the suit land, it was incumbent upon him to measure the adjoining land.

10. The demarcation was admittedly conducted in the presence of the parties and when no substance in the objections was found, then the learned Executing Court, has rightly dismissed those objections and issued the warrants of possession. The said order does not require any interference. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Virender Singh)

Judge 29th October, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)