IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6731 of 2025 Decided on: 28.04.2025 Sharda Rani … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondents-State. : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 7. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the action taken against the private respondent no 10 for his illegal acts; and / or II. A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to restore the land of the Petitioner to its original form and removing encroachment upon the land of the petitioner i.e. khasra number 681/2(at present khasra 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 number 1339/681 measuring 00-00-77 hectares); and/or III. A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued take action against the erring officials who have sheltered private respondent no 10: and/or IV. Exemplary Cost may kindly be imposed upon the Respondents authorities herein for using the land of the Petitioner without her permission and to shelter the acts of private respondent no 10 which may be ordered to be recovered from respondent no 10; and/or” 2. This Court is of the considered view that as the primary allegation and grievance of the petitioner is towards the acts of omission of the private respondents, this writ petition is not maintainable because in a lis between two individuals generally, a writ does not lie. The petitioner shall be well advised to approach appropriate Fora/Civil Court for the redressal of her grievance against the private respondent. 3. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is another issue which is that the land of the petitioner has been utilized by the respondents for the purpose of construction of the road without her consent. If that is so, then the petitioner to this limited extent may file a fresh petition as prayed for and the disposal of this petition shall not come in her way in doing 3 so. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 28, 2025 (narender)