IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

CWP No. 3185/2026 Decided on: 18.03.2026 Ramesh Chand ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for rreporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.

For thCe respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyo tsna Rewal Dua, J.

Petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated

07.01.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi, whereby the case has been remanded to the Collector, Sub- Division Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for deciding the appeal preferred by some of the private respondents afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

3. The petitioner filed an application for partition of land held by him jointly with the respondents. It appears that mode of partition was prepared on 28.01.2014. Certain objections were raised by some of the respondents before the Assistant Collector First Grade, which were dismissed on 18.05.2017. Appeal preferred by some of the respondents, was allowed by the Sub Divisional Collector Sundernagar, District Mandi, vide order dated 13.11.2018 with the observations that the Assistant Collector had straightaway forwarded the concerned partition file to the Field Kanungo for preparing “Fard Kabza”; The Assistant Collector First Grade had directly followed para-14.13 A of the H.P. Land Records Manual and skipped preceding paras. The Sub Divisional Collector held the above to be procedural failure on part of the Assistant Collector First Grade. For this reason, appeal was allowed and the Assistant Collector First Grade was directed to take further necessary action as per provisions of the H.P. Land Records Manual.

Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 13.11.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division. Petitioner’s appeal was allowed on 07.01.2026. While allowing the appeal, the Divisional Commissioner held that the order impugned before the Collector by some of the private respondents was the one passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade on 18.05.2017; There was no discussion about this order in the order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector on 13.11.2018; The order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector on 13.11.2018 was non-speaking vis-a-vis the appeal preferred by the respondents against specific order dated 18.05.2017. For this reason, present petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 13.11.2018 was allowed. The said impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and keeping in view the observations made by the Divisional Commissioner in the order dated 07.01.2026.

4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has urged that the appeal preferred before the Sub Divisional Collector by some of the private respondents was, in fact, not maintainable against the order dated 18.05.2017, and further that even otherwise there had been no infraction of the procedure followed by the Assistant Collector, who had adhered to the notification dated 26.06.2012 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Revenue. It was submitted that the observations made by the Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 are contrary to the aforesaid notification.

5. The present is a case where the petitioner feels aggrieved against the decision of the Divisional Commissioner in allowing his appeal. According to the petitioner, while allowing his appeal, the Divisional Commissioner should not have remanded the case to the Sub Divisional Collector for fresh decision, as according to the petitioner, the appeal preferred by the respondents before the