2025:HHC:33718-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPIL No.54 of 2022 Decided on: 22.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Court on its own motion ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2, 4 to 6 and 9-State. Mr. Virbahadur Verma and Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocates, for respondent No.3-State Pollution Control Board. Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi and Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocates, for respondents No.7 and 8. Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for the applicants/ interveners in CMP No.2546 of 2023. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present Public Interest Litigation was registered on account of the representation received pursuant to letter dated 20.06.2022 written by Pradhan, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:33718-DB - 2 - Gram Panchayat Sanchani, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, regarding hardship to the said Gram Panchayat alongwith Panchayats of Dalashni and Rot, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu. 2. The allegations, as such, were that one Ram Rattan, Nautor Patta Holder, Resident of Village Hurcha, Tehsil Sainj, in connivance with the employees of Revenue Department had tempered with Patta No.243 and made it to Patta No.243/1 by increasing 15 Bighas land to 15 Bighas 16 Biswas and clubbed one Patta to the aforesaid two Pattas. The aforesaid Pattas were sold to one Rajesh Kumar, son of Lachman Dass, Proprietor of Pooja Stone Crusher, R/o Village Takoli, Post Office Panarsa, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. There were also the allegations of mining being carried out and resultantly, even criminal complaints, as such, were registered as per the said communication. The present Public Interest Litigation was firstly taken up on 19.07.2022 and the notices were issued. Prior to that Rajesh Kumar was impleaded as respondent No.8 in the instant petition. 3. It is to be noticed that Rajesh Kumar also filed Civil Suit No.49 [106] of 2022 in the Court of Senior Civil 2025:HHC:33718-DB - 3 - Judge, Kullu against Bihari Lal and fifteen others, on 09.06.2022, titled as Rajesh Kumar Versus Bihari Lal and others for permanent injunction against the defendants for obstructing him from carrying out mining and extracting the stones from the land comprised in Khasra No.5377, measuring 15-16-00 Bighas of land situated in Mohal Rot-II, Kothi Bhallan and also restraining the defendants from obstructing the PWD road, which was connected to the suit land with the main highway leading to the crusher side. 4. Apparently, Deva Nand and six others had also filed a Civil Suit No.55 [112] of 2022 at Kullu against Ram Rattan and two others, on 14.06.2022, titled as Deva Nand and others Versus Ram Rattan and others seeking similar relief for permanent injunction, in which Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, sons of Lachman were arrayed as defendants No.2 and 3 and the prayer was as such for restraining the defendants from extracting stones and carrying out any kind of mining operations. 5. Similarly, Civil Suit No.84 of 2022, titled as Rajesh Kumar and another Versus State of H.P. and others was filed on 05.07.2022, before this Court by both 2025:HHC:33718-DB - 4 - Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, sons of Lachman and as per amended plaint, suit was for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the State pertaining to the same land measuring 15-16-00 Bighas. 6. An application, i.e. OMP No.458 of 2022, under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment as defendants No.4 to 6 came to be filed by Om Prakash, Ram Krishan and Dharmender, seeking impleadment by claiming that they were necessary parties and having been gravely affected on account of illegal mining activities and pasture land, as such, was being destroyed and there was a fraud, as such. 7. A reference was made to Civil Suit No.49 [106] of 2022, titled as Rajesh Kumar Versus Bihari Lal and others and other Civil Suit No.55 [112] of 2022, titled as Deva Nand and others Versus Ram Rattan and others apart from other litigation. However, learned Single Judge chose to dismiss the application for impleadment on 05.12.2022 in Civil Suit No. 84 of 2022. On 22.11.2022, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:- “Having heard learned Amicus Curiae, learned 2025:HHC:33718-DB - 5 - Advocate General and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to call for the records of CWP No. 8232 of 2021 titled as Om Prakash and others vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 3742 of 2022 titled as Rajesh Kumar and another vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 562 of 2002, titled as Rupi Dehat Sudhar Sangathan vs. Union of India and others and Civil Suit No. 84 of 2022 titled as Rajesh Kumar and another vs. State of H.P. and others, all filed in this Court. Insofar as the Civil Suit No. 49 of 2022 titled as Rajesh Kumar vs. Bihari Lal, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kullu, H.P. and Civil Suit No.55 of 2022 titled as Devanand and others vs. Ram Rattan and others, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kullu, H.P. are concerned, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to call for the photocopies of the record and proceedings in the aforesaid two Civil Suits. Despite the directions contained in para-3 of the order dated 03.08.2022, there is no affidavit filed by respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. The learned Advocate General states that the same would be filed before the next date of hearing as the said Deputy Commissioner was busy on account of Assembly Elections. List on 16.12.2022.” 8. On 11.03.2025, we noticed that the Deputy Commissioner, District Kullu, as per Enquiry Report 2025:HHC:33718-DB - 6 - dated 29.11.2024, had come to the conclusion that the sanctioned grant of land to Sh. Ram Rattan on the basis of Patta No.243/1 was deemed fit to be reviewed and the matter had been sent to Financial Commissioner [Appeals] vide communication dated 30.11.2024. Eventually, vide order dated 31.05.2025, the Financial Commissioner [Appeals], Himachal Pradesh, accepted the Revision and set aside the order dated 07.03.2014 passed by the Collector 9. It is not disputed that Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar now have filed CWP No.10527 of 2025 challenging the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the Financial Commissioner [Appeals], Himachal Pradesh, in Review Petition No.259 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. Versus Rajesh Kumar and another. 10. Thus, apparently, it would be clear that cause of action, as such, is inter se the same parties and the whole issue is regarding the usage of the Patta in the name of Ram Rattan, which is now stated to be of Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, who are the beneficiaries of the same and two Civil Suits, are pending one in District Court Kullu and one Civil suit in this Court filed by the Owners/Proprietor of Pooja Stone Crusher in CWP 2025:HHC:33718-DB - 7 - No.10527 of 2025. 11. On the other hand, certain persons, who are alleged to have certain rights in the land in question have questioned the allotment in the hands of Ram Rattan and consequent sale in favour of the owner/ Proprietor of Stone Crusher, namely Rajesh Kumar by filing the suit at Kullu by way of permanent injunction. 12. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that two Civil Suits which are pending at Kullu, i.e. Civil Suit No.49 [106] of 2022 and Civil Suit No.55 [112] of 2022, be ordered to be heard with Civil Suit No.84 of 2022 alongwith CWP No.10527 of 2025. Accordingly, the present Public Interest Litigation can be given a closure on that count as the rights of parties have to be adjudicated upon, after proper appreciation of the facts and it would not be appropriate for this Court to opine upon the rights, as such, of the parties as facts are arising regarding going into the root of the matter even pertaining to the Patta whether the same is forged or not and is also subject matter of consideration on the order passed by the Revenue Authorities at the highest level. 2025:HHC:33718-DB - 8 - 13. As noticed, even criminal complaints had been filed and the matter had been looked into by the State also, which is stated to have been closed, thus, we are not commenting on the merits of the case in the PIL. 14. Needless to say, keeping in view that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure [OMP No.458 of 2022] on the ground that there was no relief claimed against the applicants, the same can be re-agitated as the Civil Suits on being transferred to this Court are being clubbed and heard together. 15. Keeping in view the above, we are also of the considered opinion that since both the Civil Suits are being clubbed alongwith Civil Suit No.84 of 2022, it would be open to Deva Nand and other applicants- interveners to file afresh application(s), if any, in case so required, since Civil Suits are being clubbed together for the benefit of completing the pleadings, so that learned Single Judge of this Court can go into the issue in detail. 16. State has sought time to complete the pleadings in CWP No.10527 of 2025. Accordingly, needful be done within four weeks from today. 2025:HHC:33718-DB - 9 - 17. The Public Interest Litigation stands closed, leaving the parties to agitate their grievances in the said proceedings. 18. Needful to say, the observations are made for the purpose of disposing of the present Public Interest Litigation and learned Single Judge will take into consideration all the relevant aspects. 19. Accordingly, the present Public Interest Litigation is disposed of. Office will take necessary steps to call for the relevant file of the said suits. 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 22, 2025 [Bhardwaj]