2025:HHC:19154 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2394 of 2019. Decided on : 20.06.2025 Chandu Ram Sharma. …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. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, for the applicant/proposed respondent. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No. 18223 of 2022 By way of this application, a prayer has been made to implead applicant Sh. Hemant Sharma, as party respondent in the present writ petition. 2. As there is no objection to the application and 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:19154 keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. Mr. Hemant Sharma, is hereby impleaded as respondent No.7. Application stands disposed of. CWP No. 2394 of 2019 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the illegal order dated 28.02.2019 Annexure P-11 and 22.03.2019 Annexure P- 12 passed by respondent with respect to Khata Khatouni No. 33 & 34 more particular Khasra No. 779 Mohal Batmana. ii) That the respondents may be directed not to interfere peaceful possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatouni No. 33 & 34 more particular Khasra No. 779 Mohal Batmana” 4. When this case was heard by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.09.2019, the following order was passed:- “Heard for some time. Let the then Collector, Sub Division, Shimla (Rural), Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Dhami and Ms. Debashweta Banik, Additional Deputy Commissioner, 3 2025:HHC:19154 explain under what circumstances and under which provision of law they have entertained the instant dispute and passed various orders especially when the same is of private nature as is borne out from the documents placed on record. Admittedly, the disputed Khasra No. 779 of Village Batmana belongs to various individual shareholders including the petitioner and not to the government and, therefore, there is no question of the petitioner having encroached thereupon, more particularly, when he is one of the co-owners. At this stage, a feeble attempt has been made by the learned Deputy Advocate General to convince this Court that the land in question has been donated by the other co-sharers in favour of the HPPWD and thus the petitioner has encroached over the said land. However, he was not in a position to deny that the land still continues to be joint amongst the various co- sharers and is so reflected in the revenue record, more particularly, Annexure P-4. Therefore, even if it is accepted that some of the co-sharers have donated the land in favour of HPPWD, even then no specific portion thereof could have been donated in absence of it being partitioned and on the 4 2025:HHC:19154 same analogy there is no question of the petitioner being an encroacher over Khasra No. 779 of which admittedly he is one of the co-owners. CMP No. 9511 of 2019 Reply within four weeks. In the meanwhile, respondents are restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the land comprised in Khata Khatouni No. 33 & 34, more particularly, Khasra No. 779, Mohal Batmana, till further orders. Copy dasti.” 5. Today, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to defeat the legitimate rights of the petitioner, at his back, the revenue records stand interpolated and the name of the petitioner in his capacity as co-owner viz- a-viz Khasra No. 779, has been deleted from the Revenue Record. He further submitted that to this effect the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit, which is pending adjudication and in the light of this fact, in case, impugned Annexures are given effect to, the very purpose of filing the Civil Suit, would be defeated. He also referred to the observations made by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in order dated 19.09.2019 and submitted that in the light of the fact that there is an observation that 5 2025:HHC:19154 petitioner cannot be construed to be an encroacher upon Khasra No. 779 as he admittedly is one of the co-owners, the impugned orders, if allowed to remain on record, shall prejudice the interest of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondent, submitted that the petitioner has no right over Khasra No. 779 in any capacity, whatsoever. Even if there was any right of the petitioner, he has already forgone that right. He further submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit, the issues that are being agitated in this petition, should also have been agitated in the Civil Suit itself and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the private respondent, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the fact that the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit qua his right over Khasra No. 779, which is pending adjudication, it would not be in the interest of either of the the parties, in case, this Court makes any observation viz-a- 6 2025:HHC:19154 viz the issues that have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition on merit. Therefore, to avoid causing prejudice to either of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that till the outcome of the Civil Suit, Annexure P-11, dated 28.02.2019 and Annexure P-12, dated 22.03.2019, shall remain in abeyance. 8. It is again clarified that this Court has not made any observation as far as the merit of the issues raised in this petition are concerned and learned Civil Court shall decide the Civil Suit without being influenced by any observation made by this Court, in this writ petition and endeavour be made by learned Civil Court to decide the Civil Suit, as expeditiously as possible. 9. The petition is disposed of, in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 20, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)