2025:HHC:24533 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.450 of 2017 Decided on: 28.07.2025 Munshi Ram … Petitioner Versus Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Bhoranj & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State. Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Shivalik Bhaik, Advocate, vice Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) The impugned order dated 28.08.2017 passed by Respondent No.1 may kindly be set aside; or/and b) That the matter may kindly be remanded back to Respondent No.1 with a direction to inspect the spot and then pass appropriate order.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.08.2017, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. Case No.07 of 2017, in an appeal which was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24533 preferred under the Panchayati Raj Act, against the order passed by Gram Panchayat, dat5ed 20.05.2017. 3. A perusal of Section 67 of the Panchayati Raj Act demonstrates that any person aggrieved by an order or decree of a Bench of the Gram Panchayat, may appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of such order or decree to the Judicial Magistrate/Sub-Judge in respect of any case or suit, as the case may be, and the Collector concerned in respect of any proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Land, 1953. 4. Herein, as the order that was passed by the bench of the Gram Panchayat was not relatable to the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, therefore, no appeal was maintainable before the Collector and it appears that the petitioner wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the Collector, which resulted in the passing of the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these proceedings be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to withdraw the appeal that was filed before the Collector, with liberty to file a fresh appeal before the Court, if so advised. 6. This is seriously opposed by learned counsel for the private respondent, who submitted that no such request can be entertained after the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner and 3 2025:HHC:24533 that too, as far back as in the year 2017. 7. In the light of the statutory provisions of Section 67 of the Panchayati Raj Act, as prima facie, the petitioner has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the Collector, but natural the order passed by the Authority is non est in the eyes of law. 8. Therefore, this petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to withdraw the appeal that was filed before the Collector and as a result thereof, the order passed by the Collector thereupon, dated 28.07.2017, which is assailed by way of this petition, is ordered to have been rendered ineffective. The petitioner, as prayed for, may file an appeal before the appropriate Fora as per Section 67 of the Panchayati Raj Act, if so advised. However, as far as issue of limitation is concerned, in case any application is filed in that regard, let the appropriate Fora shall decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in this petition and subject to all the legal rights of the respondents. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 28, 2025 (Rishi)