1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3371 of 2015 Decided on: 24.06.2026 Sada Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition was filed in the year 2015 seeking to quash the communication dated 31.07.1992. The substantive relief prayed in the writ petition is as under:- “A. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the communication dated 31.07.1992 vide Annexure P-6 to the extent that the land for the construction of house cannot be allotted to the petitioner as there is ban on the transfer of land for the construction of house as there was no such ban on the transfer of land in favour of landless scheduled caste. B. That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the various representation moved by the petitioner vide Annexures P-2, P-4, P-7, P-8 & P-9 by keeping in view the various recommendations and reports submitted by the revenue officials and various public representatives vide Annexures P-3, P-5, P-10 and P-11, respectively within time bound 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 manner with a speaking order by giving personal hearing to the petitioner. C. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the act and conduct of the respondents authorities of demolishing the house of the petitioner as harsh and against the very object of the constitution.” 2. Heard and considered the case file. 3. Annexure P-6 impugned by the petitioner is an office letter dated 31.07.1992 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur conveying the petitioner that in view of ban imposed, it is not possible to grant land in his favour for construction of house, though in case the petitioner is desirous for running some marginal business, the respondents can consider such case for granting around 25 square meters land on lease for 30 years. 23 years after the receipt of the aforesaid office letter, the petitioner instituted this writ petition seeking to assail the aforesaid decision. The relief prayed by the petitioner suffers from unexplained delay and laches. Further respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 in their reply have pleaded that petitioner had also preferred a Civil Suit bearing No. 159- 6/15 (Sada Ram versus State) in the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division claiming that he is owner in possession of suit land. The petitioner had constructed his house on Khasra No.265/248/221/1 and not on 269/248/221/1 in Mohal Peharwin, Tehsil Bhager, District 3 Bilaspur, H.P. After settlement, khasra number had been changed to 210/1. The respondents have denied that petitioner was in possession of this land for the last 40 years as alleged by him. According to the respondents, petitioner had encroached upon the land in question; Proceedings were accordingly, initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. Notice was issued to the petitioner to appear in these proceedings on 01.04.1995. The Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur under order dated 07.12.2009 found the land encroached by the petitioner to be forest land. In terms of reply, the case file was accordingly presented to the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ghumarwin. It is thus apparent that petitioner has also taken recourse to civil remedies. 4. In view of stand taken by the respondents and the observations made herein, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be allowed to him at this stage. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 24, 2026 Judge yogesh