SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2722

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
JAGDISH CHAND AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP/7043/2026



Petitioner Advocates:Ashwani Kaundal ,Respondent Advocate: AG

##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.7043 of 2026

Decided on: 19.05.2026

_________________________________________________________________

Jagdish Chand and Anr ....Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents

_________________________________________________________________

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

1 Whether approved for reportting?

___________________________r______________________________________

For the petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General

with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional

Advocate General for respondent

No.1.

Nemo for respondents No.2 to 8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner feels aggrieved against order dated

26.02.2024, passed by the Divisional Commissioner Mandi

[exercising powers of Financial Commissioner, (Appeals)

Himachal Pradesh], whereby revision petition preferred by the

petitioners was dismissed.

2. Heard and considered the case file.

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

::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2026 20:45:41 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

3. From the case file, it appears that:- It was during

the years 2003-04 that respondent No.2 moved an application

under Section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue

Act, 1954 (the Act in short) for partition of lanHd held by him

jointly with other co-owners, including the present

petitioners. The Assistant Collector First Grade, Nadaun,

District Hamirpur, processed the application and vide order

dated 23.02.2005, finalized the partition. Feeling aggrieved

against order dated 23.02.2005, petitioners preferred appeal

before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Nadaun, District

Hamirpur. The appeal was dismissed on 24.12.2008.

Petitioners carried the matter further in Revision Petition filed

undher Section 17 of the Act before the Divisional

gCommissioner, Mandi [exercising powers of Financial

Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh]. The said

Revision Petition was also dismissed on 26.02.2024.

More than a year after the dismissal of the

aforesaid Revision Petition, petitioners instituted this writ

petition seeking to quash and set aside order dated

26.02.2024. Objections pointed out by the Registry in the

writ petition were removed after a delay of about 270 days.

::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2026 20:45:41 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

The substantive relief prayed for in the writ petition reads as

under:-

“(i) That the impugned order dated 26.02.2024

(Annexure P-5) may kindly be quashed and further

directed the learned Assistant Collector 1st Class

to partition the land as per posse ssion and share of

the parties.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

a path had been provided otver Khasra No. 99 subject matter

of partition proceedings, but width of the path provided to the

petitioners in the aforesaid khasra number was not adequate.

For this reason, orders passed by the Authorities below are

required to be set aside and the matter remanded to the

Assistant Collector First Grade, Nadaun District Hamirpur,

for carrying out fresh partition proceedings.

5. Perusal of order dated 23.02.2005 passed by the

Assistant Collector First Grade, Nadaun District Hamirpur,

finalizing the partition proceedings takes note of petitioners’

prayer for giving them path from Khasra No. 99 and

accordingly path has been carved out from Khasra No. 99.

Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any

document on the case file suggesting that petitioners ever

::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2026 20:45:41 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

objected either before the Sub Divisional Collector, Nadaun or

before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi about

inadequacy/insufficiency of the width of path carved out in

Khasra No.99. The order passed by the HSub-Divisional,

Collector, Nadaun, as also by the Divisional Commissioner,

Mandi takes note of the fact that petitioner No.1 had himself

given a statement on 29.01.2005 to the effect that partition

carried out on the spot was acceptable to him. That being

the admitted position and there being no document

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top