Tej Singh & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Taking note of petitioners’ grievances and the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, more particularly, respondent No.8-the contesting respondent, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.4/Sub Divisional Officer (C) Manali, District Kullu to decide the appeal in reference…
Judgment
Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 7. Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate, respondent No.8. Ms.Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.9. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondents No. 8 and 9 have though not filed replies, however, with consent of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the grievance of the petitioners and also order being passed hereinafter, the matter has been heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 -
Respondent No.8 moved an application partition of land held by him jointly with other co-owners including the present petitioners and respondent No.9. ‘Fard Kabza’ was prepared by the concerned revenue officials on
09.01.2024. Mode partition was prepared
15.02.2024/20.02.2024. On account of certain errors in ‘Fard Kabza’ etc, revised mode of partition was prepared on
15.02.2024/31.12.2024. Revised mode of partition was accepted on 10.03.2025 and instrument of partition was prepared on 10.04/11.04.2025. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated
10.03.2025, petitioners preferred appeal on 16.04.2025 under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 before the Sub Divisional Collector Manali, District Kullu, H.P. The appeal came up for first hearing before the concerned Sub Divisional Collector on 22.04.2025 when the Lower Court record was ordered to be requisitioned. Notices were also ordered to be issued to the respondents and the matter was posted on 14.05.2025 for service. Petitioners’ grievance is that even when their application for grant of interim relief against the impugned - 3 - order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade Manali, District Kullu, preferred alongwith the main appeal was pending decision before the Collector, mutation No. 934 was attested by the Filed Revenue Staff on 17.04.2025 qua the in dispute, on the basis of impugned partition proceedings. In the above background, following reliefs have been claimed in this writ petition: -
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to carry out the demarcation and maintain status quo till the adjudication of the appeal before the Ld respondent no. 4. (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direct the respondent no. 4 to adjudicate the appeal in a time bound manner at the earliest possible convenience of the respondent no. 4. (c) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the orders of the Ld. Assistant Collector First Grade in the adjudication of appeal by the Ld. SDM to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
This writ petition came up for consideration on
01.05.2025, when following interim protection was granted, which has continued to remain in force till date: -
CWP No. 7134 of 2025 Notice. - 4 - Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7. Issue notice to respondents No.8 & 9, returnable for 26.06.2025. Steps for service be taken, within a period of one week. Reply be filed by appearing respondents, in the meanwhile. CMP No. 9129 of 2025 Notice in above terms. Till further orders, it is directed that in the light of the Appeal filed by the petitioner still pending before the quasi-Judicial Authority, respondent No.1 shall not conduct or cause to be conducted any demarcation, measurement or physical interference, with the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1302 and 1486, Muhal Badagram, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu. Parties shall further maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land.
Admittedly, petitioners have already invoked the statutory remedy of appeal available to them against the impugned order. That being the position, stricto-sensu instant writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel the petitioners, however, submitted that necessity to file this writ petition arose as the concerned Sub Divisional Collector had not adjudicated/passed any order on the interim application moved by the petitioners. The appeal preferred by the petitioners before the - 5 - concerned Sub Divisional Collector is still stated to be pending and is fixed for 08.04.2026.
Operative part
Taking note of petitioners’ grievances and the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, more particularly, respondent No.8-the contesting respondent, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.4/Sub Divisional Officer (C) Manali, District Kullu to decide the appeal in reference pending before him in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from today. Parties shall render their cooperation for an early decision of the appeal. Taking into consideration the interim order passed in this matter on 01.05.2025, that has continued to remain in force till date, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that till decision of the appeal by the aforesaid Authority, the parties shall maintain status quo qua nature, possession and title of the land in question. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. March 30, 2026 R.Atal Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 — s. 14.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 30 Mar 2026. The bench was JYOTSNA REWAL DUA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.