2025:HHC:8584 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4645 of 2025 Decided on : 01.04.2025 Jai Singh and another. …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the order dated 13.09.1974 contained in Annexure P-3, order dated 17.07.1980 contained in Annexure P-4 and order dated 22.04.1985 contained in Annexure P-5 may kindly be set aside/quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to evict the petitioners from the land bearing Khasra No. 231/1, measuring 5-9-0 bigha, situated in Mohal 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:8584 Maseran/307, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. issuing a writ of mandamus.” 2. The petitioners assailed the orders passed by the Authorities dated 13.09.1974, 17.07.1980 and 22.04.1985 respectively. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition, the last order i.e. 22.04.1985, was an order that was passed by financial Commissioner (Appeals), in Revenue Revision No. 263 of 1984, filed by the father of the petitioners, challenging the orders passed by the Authority in terms whereof the father of the petitioners was held to be not entitled for the grant of Nautor land. 3. On a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court was informed that the father of the petitioners died in the year 2015. This means that the orders which are now being assailed by the petitioners was in existence for almost 30 years as till the date when the father of the petitioners died and in his wisdom the father of the petitioner, never assailed it. 4. In this backdrop, when the father of the petitioners was satisfied with the order, who actually could be termed to be 3 2025:HHC:8584 an aggrieved person as far as order(s) are concerned, the present petitioners do not have any locus to file and maintain this writ petition. In fact, if these kind of writ petitions are encouraged and entertained by this Court, it will open a flood gate of litigation, wherein second or third generation will start assailing orders passed by the quasi-judicial Authorities or even Judicial Authorities, which with the passage of time have attained finality. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 01, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)