##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

LPA No. 149 of 2026 Decided on: 30.03.2026

Bhavik Jain and Ors. .…Appellants.

Versus

State of H.P. and Ors. …Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mru. Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the appellants : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional g Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

The challenge in the present Letters Patent

Appeal is to the order dated 25.02.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2052 of 2026, titled Bhavik Jain and others vs. State of H.P. and others, whereby the petitioners have been relegated to avail their alternative statutory remedy under Section 43(5) read with Section 44 of

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

::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:38:58 :::CIS

2

( 2026:HHC:9839)

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) AcPt, 2016 (in short the ‘Act’).

2. Learned Single Judge has relied upon various judgments rendered in Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2021) 6 SCC 771 and of the Division Bench in LPA No. 492 of 2024, titled Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Kundan Hydro (Luni) Pvtu. Ltd. and another, decided on 09.01.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others (2003) 6 SCC 675 and also judgment of the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries case (supra) to contend that the order passed by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is argued that the

H learned Single Judge erred in not entertaining the writ petition and in dismissing the same by relegating the petitioners to an alternative efficacious remedy.

4. We have perused the order dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure P-7) which was subject matter of consideration before the learned Single Judge. A perusal of the same would reveal that a show cause notice, as such, had been issued to the petitioners, being the owners of the land, in respect of a

::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:38:58 :::CIS

3

( 2026:HHC:9839)

private partition of the land purchased from PSh. Nipun Malhotra, vide registered sale deed dated 22.07.2021, pertaining to an undivided share in the property measuring 11,524 square meters. Eventually, the petitioners sold various plots out of the land that had been divided amongst them by way of a private partition. The respondent-Authority has taken exception to the procedure followed and has concluded that the petitioners were required to be mandatorily registered under the relevant provisions, and that they had promoted the project without such registration and therefore, imposed a penalty, as such, upon the present petitioners to the tune of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/-) per

plot for 17 plots for violation of Section 3.

i5. Various directions have also been issued to the Additional Chief Secretary, as such, regarding the manner in which the partition took place and the manner in which plots have been sold, whereby the respondent-Authority was of the considered opinion that there was an apparent violation of the relevant rules also. It is also not in dispute that the total numbers of plots had been sold to 17 petitioners and that the two of the appellants had sold 6 plots while the third

::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:38:58 :::CIS

4

( 2026:HHC:9839)

had sold five plots. The total area sold is stated tPo be 3,256 square meters, out of the divided share of 5511 square meters, whereas, the remaining 6,012 square meters still continues to remain under the joint ownership. In such circumstances, the authorities have concluded that the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act as well as the provisions under the Revenue

Department have been violated.

6. In Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcemen