IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1793 of 2021 Decided on: 7th April, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anand Bhatnagar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Navneet Kumar Bhalla, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) That Writ of Certiorari may be issued for quashing and setting aside the impugned order Annexure-P/13 and Annexure-P/14 passed by respondent no.2 ordering vestment of the land in Khasra No.204, situated in Mauza Jagjit Nagar, Tehsil Krishangarh, Distt. Solan H.P. in favour of respondent no.1, passed further in sequence to Annexure-P/9 and Annexure-P/10. b) That any subsequent action taken by the respondent in pursuant to order Annexure-P/15 and Annexure-P/16 by transfer of property in Khasra No.204, situated in Mauza Jagjit Nagar, Tehsil Krishangarh, Distt. Solan H.P., may kindly be quashed. c) That revenue entries in favour of respondent no.1 and 2 as recorded in Annexure-P/1 may kindly be ordered to be quashed with direction to record the petitioner and other legal heirs of Late Sh. Shiv Narayan and Sh. Shyam Narayan who are absolute owners possessing the property in Khasra No. 204, Mauza Jagjit Nagar, Tehsil Krishangarh, Distt. Solan H.P., on the spot. The 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 respondents may be directed to transfer the land comprised in Khasra No.204, situated in Mauza Jagjit Nagar, Tehsil Krishangarh, Distt. Solan H.P. in favour of petitioner in the revenue record.” 2. It is an admitted position that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him unless and until the judgment & decree dated 07.12.1985 (Annexure P/10) passed in Case No.102/1 of 1985 by the Court of learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Kandaghat, Camp at Solan is set aside. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to avail appropriate remedy as may be available to him in law for the redressal of his grievances including against the aforesaid judgment & decree and therefore, this writ petition be permitted to be withdrawn. However, the period spent in pursuing this litigation be exempted from limitation. Prayer is accepted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The period spent by the petitioner in pursuing this litigation shall not be computed towards limitation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 07, 2026 Judge Mukesh