1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5577 of 2023 Decided on: 10.08.2026 Dharam Singh (since deceased) through his L.Rs …..Petitioners Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur and Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 4 (a) & 4(b). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners feeling aggrieved against the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners. 2. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of Section 17 (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) “if in any case in which a Commissioner or Collector, has called for a record, is of the opinion that the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Financial Commissioner”, the Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order himself. He was required to report the case with his opinion thereupon for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. In the instant case, the order impugned has been passed by the Divisional Commissioner. He has not forwarded the case to the Financial Commissioner. There is no order from the Financial Commissioner, therefore, this is an illegality which makes the impugned order vitiated in law. 3. I am not impressed with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. In terms of above extracted Section 17(3) of the Act, it is only in case the Commissioner is of the view that order passed by the lower authority needs to be modified or reversed that he has to report the case with his opinion for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. In the instant case, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Collector, Nurpur on 15.01.2007. The same was dismissed on 04.06.2008. The order passed by the Collector, Nurpur had neither been modified nor reversed by the Divisional Commissioner in the impugned 3 order dated 19.05.2023. Therefore, no occasion arose in the given facts and circumstances of the case for the Divisional Commissioner to forward the case to the Financial Commissioner. The provisions of Section 17(3) were not attracted to the instant case. No other ground was urged. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 10, 2026 Judge yogesh