2025:HHC:16982 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5726 of 2025 Decided on: 28.05.2025 Kashmir Singh … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Ms. Aanchal Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf respondents No.1 to 5- State. As none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.6 to 10 despite service, said respondents are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) That the respondents No.3 and 4 may kindly be directed to decide the case of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 in a time bound manner in the interest of justice. (b) That the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to re-construct the file and decide the case in a time bound manner.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of order dated 12.10.2010, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi, in a petition filed under Section 54 of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:16982 Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, filed by predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, the petition was allowed by the Authority and the case was remanded to Tehsildar, Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. with the direction that the case be decided along with another petition, i.e. petition No.926 of 2009, titled as Jai Singh etc. Versus Khem Singh. Yet, despite the fact that this order was passed on 12.10.2010, till date, the petitioner has not heard anything from Tehsildar, nor the said case has been decided by Tehsildar till date. To substantiate this fact, the information obtained under Right to Information Act is appended with the petition. 4. In the light of said facts, this petition is disposed of with the direction that if the matter post remand has not been decided by Tehsildar till date, then needful be done by Tehsildar within a period of three months as form the date when the copy of this order shall be intimated to the Tehsildar by the petitioner by adhering to the principles of natural justice. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation as far as merit of this case is concerned. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 28, 2025 (Rishi)