Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This Court vide its order dated 18.12.2017 had asked the petitioners to justify the maintainability of the instant writ petition, more particularly, in light of the fact that the earlier writ petition being CWP No. 5269 of 2014 filed by the predecessor-in-interest Sh. Mangat Ram Azta had already been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 29.8.2014 and even the SLP filed against the same had been withdrawn to enable him to approach this Court with the plea to extend the period for complying with the order passed by further four months.

2. It is not in dispute that Sh. Mangat Ram Azta had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No. 5269 of 2014, wherein he had sought the following reliefs:

(a) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 447 IPC and Section 33 of the Forest Act through FIR No. 42/2011 may kindly be quashed and set-aside being void, illegal and unconstitutional and total infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

(b) The notifications attached as Annexure P-6, P-7 and P-8 may kindly be quashed and set-aside being illegal and unconstitutional.

(c) A writ of mandamus may also be issued directing the State Government to make entries regarding the proprietary rights of the petitioner and other persons of the same community in column No.5 of the jamabandi as per their legal rights.

(d) Any appropriate order or direction against the State Government for acting illegally and malafidely and under the colourable exercise of legislation infringing the valuable rights of the petitioner.”

3. Even though the reliefs claimed above are self-speaking, however, it needs to be clarified that Annexures P-6, P-7 and P-8, were the copies of the notifications issued by the State Government, from time to time. Annexure P-6 is the notification FFE-B-A(II)1/2006-11 dated 31.5.2011, whereas Annexure P-7 is the copy of notification dated 25th February, 1952 and Annexure P-8 is a copy of notification issued by the respondents under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

4. It is not in dispute that the writ petition filed by Sh. Mangat Ram Azta had been dismissed on merits and all the contentions raised therein were rejected by a learned Division Bench by concluding as under:

“10. The State Government cannot issue direction for regularization of any forest land. However, before parting with the judgment, all the courts in the State of Himachal Pradesh are directed to take into consideration notification dated 24.4.1997 issued by the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh for demarcation of private lands touching Government lands or boundaries of another State as well as notification dated 13.9.2012 on the issue of demarcation of land while deciding the cases. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal is directed to decide the case within a period of six months since the FIR was registered in the year 2011. All the courts in Himachal Pradesh are also directed to decide the cases pertaining to encroachment on the forest land within a period of one year.

11. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.”

5. It is further not in dispute that Sh. Mangat Ram Azta aggrieved by the foresaid judgment, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing appeal, however, the same was withdrawn so as to enable the petitioner to approach this Court with the plea to extend the period by further four months as would be clearly evident from the order dated 6.7.2015, which reads thus:

“At the threshold Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Special Leave Petition so as to enable the petitioner to approach the High Court with the plea to extend the period by further four months. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as wi