IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 417 of 2023 Decided on: 23.05.2025 ____________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……….. petitioner Versus Prem Chand and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed against the impugned order/award dated 13.8.2022 passed by National Lok Adalat, whereby respondents No. 1 to 18 plaintiffs before the trial Court and respondents No. 19 & 20 defendants before the trial Court have compromised the matter in terms of compromise placed on record at page 39 of the paper book. 2. The present petitioner was a proforma defendant No.3 in the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 18. In terms of law down by the apex Court in (2008) 2. SCC 660 titled as State of Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others, the present petition is maintainable. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 18 was a suit filed for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against respondents No. 18 & 19/defendants No. 1 & 2 before the trial Court. In the suit so filed, it was categorically admitted that the land in question is owned by proforma respondent No.3. In terms of the compromise placed at page 39 of the paper book, respondents No. 1 to 18 (plaintiffs) and respondents No. 19 and 20(defendants) before the trial Court have settled the matter insofar as their respective possession of the suit land is concerned. Obviously no claim had been made in the suit with respect to the ownership of the suit land. Hence, in view of the compromise so arrived, the impugned order dated 13.8.2022 had been passed whereby matter inter se the parties in terms of compromise placed at page 39 was compromised and the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 18 was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. From a perusal of the compromise (page 39 of the paper book) and the impugned order dated 13.8.2022, it is evident that all that has been compromised is the status of the possession of the parties insofar as the suit land is concerned. Since no claim has been staked to the ownership of the said land which admittedly is owned by the present petitioner/proforma defendant No.3, therefore, the present petition is disposed of 3 being devoid of any merit, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge May 23, 2025 tarun