IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5988/2021 Decided on: 16.06.2026 Roshal Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ......Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sekhar Badola, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. CMP No. 13518/2026 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of. CWP No. 5988/2021 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition was instituted on 03.07.2021 seeking direction to the respondents to exchange the land allotted to the petitioner in the year 1974-75 with another parcel of land. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. The petitioner was allotted 5 kanals 15 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 107/1, situated in Amlehar, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. The said allotment was made in favour of the petitioner during the year 1974-75 under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Land (Vesting & Utilization) Scheme, 1975. According to the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, the petitioner was also put in possession of the aforesaid land allotted to him. Petitioner's statement has also been placed on record as Annexure R-1. Admittedly, no objection was raised by the petitioner at the relevant time against the allotment of the aforesaid land in his favour on any ground, including that the land was uncultivable, as is being contended in the present writ petition. Mutation concerning the land allotted in favour of the petitioner was attested in the year 1997. According to the petitioner's pleaded case, it was on 09.09.2015 that he moved an application for allotment of different land on the ground that the land allotted to him was uncultivable. Though the concerned Tehsildar submitted a report on the application, to the effect that the land allotted to the petitioner was not fit for cultivation, the fact remains that the petitioner moved the application almost 40 years after the allotment. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land allotted to the petitioner was different from the land of which he was put in possession. The respondents in their reply have refuted this factual assertion of the petitioner. After 40 years of allotment, the petitioner cannot even be heard to complain that he was put in possession of land different from the land actually allotted to him, which even otherwise would be a disputed question of fact. The cause of action, if any available to the petitioner, was lost in oblivion during this unduly long period. Further, the respondents have also pleaded that upon receipt of petitioner's application in the year 2015, an inquiry was conducted into the matter, but no land was found available for exchange in petitioner’s favour. It has also been stated that the land in the vicinity has been recorded as forest land and, therefore, cannot now be allotted in his favour. In view of the above, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted to him at this belated stage. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 16th June, 2026 (rohit)