##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP N o.10671 of 2025 Decided on: 19.03.2026 _________________________________________________________________

Kehar Singh ....Petit.ioner Versus H State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents _______________________________________f__________________________

C oram o Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

1 Whether approved for reptorting?

________________________r_________________________________________

F or the petitioneru: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional oAdvocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3.

Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge i This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) That the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 and any action taken in lieu thereof including the notice dated 28.06.2025 passed/issued by Respondent no.2 & 3 and other proceedings may kindly be quashed and further directions may be issued to restore the Appeal no. 22/2025 and to hear the appeal by another competent authority afresh as per law.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to not to take any coercive actions more particularly to demolish part of building/building of petitioner in lPieu of the impugned orders/notice issued by Respondent no.2&3. .

(iii) That to pass an order or directionH to initiate and hold an independent inquiry against Respondent no. 2 for his illegal acts and for co mmission of serious procedural irregularities in case Appeal no. 22/2025.”

2. Following order was passed in the matter on

04.07.2025:- r “Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned oAdditional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3-State. Issue dasti notice to Crespondent No.4, returnable for 18.07.2025. Steps for dasti service be taken by 05.07.2025. Dasti notice be handed over to learned counsel by 07.07.2025.

Though, by way of this writ petition, the g petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Badsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., in i Case No.22 of 2025, titled Kehar Singh Versus State of H H.P., decided on 24.06.2025, however, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has a statutory remedy against the said order, the petitioner is hereby being given liberty to assail the same in accordance with law.

The reason as to why the Court is showing indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that it has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the issuance of order dated 24.06.2025, now process stands initiated by the Authorities to demolish the house of the petitioner, which is being threatened to be demolished by

04.07.2025, vide impugned Notice dated 2P8.06.2025 (Annexure-P10).

Till the next date of hearing, this Co.urt stays the operation of impugned Notice Hdated 28.06.2025 (Annexure P-10) and orders that no demolition pursuant to the said order shal l be carried out without the leave of the Court. The pendency of the petition should not be taken as an excuse by the petitioner for not availing the statutory remedy, alongwith application, pratying for such interim as the petitioner may deem firt.”

3. It is not in dispute that petitioner has efficacious statutory remedy available to him under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 against the order impugned hin this writ petition. In fact, during hearing of the case, glearned counsel for the petitioner apprised that subsequent ito the interim order passed in this writ petition on

04.07.2025, petitioner has availed the statutory remedy by preferring a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, H.P. [exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals)]. Learned counsel further submits that an application for interim relief, moved alongwith the revision petition, has not been decided till date by the said Authority.