2025:HHC:27827 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.342 of 2025. Decided on: 12.08.2025 Dharampal .....Appellant. Versus Satish Kumar and others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by respondent No.6 against the orders of learned Single Judge in CWP No.7306 of 2023, whereby it was directed on 03.01.2025 that State should attest the mutation in favour of the writ petitioners within a period of six weeks. 2. A Caveat was put forth that the Court was not commenting upon the possession of the land in question, which is to be decided in the appropriate Court of law. The reason, as such, which weighed with the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition was that the suit land, as such, was allotted in 2 favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners and therefore the action of cancellation was not justified in the same year. 3. In such circumstances, it was noticed that the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala had quashed and set aside the said cancellation and therefore the State was not justified in not acting on the representations filed by the writ petitioners for attesting the mutation qua the land in question. 4. The factum of the present appellant who had been arrayed as respondent No.6 having filed a Civil suit in the Civil Court for permanent injunction was also taken into consideration, and that the Civil Court had not granted the stay on mutation, and the ground that the appellant as such was in possession of some portion of the land since 1976, and it could not have been allotted in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was an issue as such which was to be decided in Civil proceedings. 5. Resultantly, it was held that the entry in the Revenue Record as such has to be shown keeping in view the allotment as such which is done by way of a Patta by the competent authority and the fact that the Divisional 3 Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, had passed the order in favour of the writ petitioners and therefore the action of not attesting the mutation in favour of the writ petitioners was held not to be justified. 6. We have also gone through the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), wherein a categorical finding has been recorded that possession of the land was handed over to the allottee. The specific mention of Patta land was made measuring 5 Kanal 5 Marlas in Khasra No.204/09 in Chacher Mouza Chatter Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. as per the provisions of HP Village Common Land Utilization and Vesting Scheme, 1975 and that the necessary deposit at that point of time of Rs.31.20 had been made. 7. In such circumstances, it was held that the Collector, Nurpur, ought to have conducted a proper enquiry before cancelling the allotment and there was no opportunity of hearing given and the principles of natural justice stood violated. 4 8. The counsel for the appellant had tried to convince us on the last date of hearing that there was allotment in his favour. Resultantly, on 01.08.2025, we had observed as under: “After arguing for some time, counsel for the appellant prays for time to seek necessary instructions, as apparently allotment of land made in favour of Ludhar Mani- predecessor-in-interest of the appellant had also been cancelled on 17.06.1976 [page 79 of the LPA] by the Collector Nurpur. The alleged re-allotment on the basis of setting up a case on 09.11.1981 [page 79] is pertaining to a different Khasra No. 204/1 whereas writ petitioner-private respondent is agitating the benefits of Khasra No. 204/9. As prayed for, list the matter on 12th August, 2025.” 9. As noticed, there was Civil Court proceedings pending in which the appellant had not got a stay and it is a disputed issue as to whether he was in possession of the land which has been allotted by the Commissioner to the writ petitioner, as apparently his allotment is of a separate Khasra number. 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity as by virtue of the allotment, necessary revenue record has to be corrected for the purpose of fiscal entries and that is the direction passed by the learned Single Judge. 5 11. The appellant thus cannot have any grouse as such in case and if he succeeds in his Civil Suit, the correction as such would be made as per the decision of the Civil Court, in case, it is found that he had any possession over the land since prima facie he even has to demonstrate how the possession as such is with him on account of the specific allotment in favour of the writ petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest. 12. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to entertain the present appeal as the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or irregularity. 13. Accordingly, we dismiss the present appeal. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 12, 2025 (ankit)