IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6737 of 2014 Decided on: 08.07.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abdul Ganni …..Petitioner Versus Chie Settlement Commissioner Rehabilitate Shimla and Anr. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 02.07.2011 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation, Shimla. The said order has been passed under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (the Act in short). In terms of the order, conveyance deed dated 31.12.1996, executed in favour of the petitioner and one another by the Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Officer, was held to be violative of the Act as also the instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and was accordingly cancelled. The land in question measuring 14.4 Sq. Yards, comprised in Khasra Nos. 5631 and 5634, situated in Mohal Sapri Tehsil Chamba, was ordered to be restored to the original owner i.e. Central Government. 3. Vide order dated 12.09.2014, passed in this writ petition, the operation of aforesaid order dated 02.07.2011 was stayed. 4. This writ petition was taken up for hearing on 11.12.2019 when following order was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench:- “Rejoinder is not intended to be filed as stated by Mr. Nimish Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner. Heard for sometime. Against the order Annexure P-3, under challenge in this writ petition, the petitioner could have filed an application for revision to the Central Government as provided under Section 24(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Therefore, the writ petition, prima facie, is not maintainable. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, seeks time to have instructions in the matter. List on 26.12.2019.” 3 Pursuant to above, learned Additional Advocate General has apprised that against the impugned order, petitioner has alternate remedy available to him under Section 24(4) of the Act by filing Revision Petition and further that such revisional powers have been conferred upon the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner also acknowledges this position in law. In view of above submissions and order dated 11.12.2019, this writ petition is disposed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy available to him under Section 24 (4) of the Act. In case, such remedy is availed by the petitioner within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided by the Competent Authority on its own merits without taking objection of limitation. In case such recourse is adopted by the petitioner, then till such time, appropriate order is passed by the Competent Authority in the main matter/application in the main matter, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner qua the subject matter in this case. However, this limited protection made available to the petitioner shall 4 cease, in case the petitioner does not avail alternate remedy of revision within the given time. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 8, 2026 Judge R.Atal