2025:HHC:30062 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 393 of 2022 Decided on: 04.09.2025 Gian Singh … Petitioner Versus Sub Divisonal Collector (Civil) Haroli .… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Addl. AG. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that respondent may kindly be directed to conclude the proceeding on the review petition/application of the petitioner under H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization (Amendment) Act 2001 (Act No. 20 of 2001 for review the mutation No. 147 dated 14-08-1975 and 17-08-1975 Moja Badsali, Hadbasat No. 197 in the name of State Government with the prayer to restoration of the entries of land as exist prior to 26-01-1950 comprising in Khewat No. 221, Khatuni Numbers 3492 to 4099 Village Bhadsali, Sub-Tehsil Ispur, Tehsil Una, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:30062 within two Months. Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice in the favour of the petitioners may kindly be allowed.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the limited prayer with which the petitioner has approached this Court is that the proceedings which have been initiated by him by way of review petition/application are not being taken to their logical conclusion by the Authority concerned. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the reply and submitted that the proceedings are not maintainable. 4. This Court is of the considered view that when the proceedings have been filed by the petitioner before the Authority, the Authority at least is bound to pass some orders thereupon. Assuming that the proceedings are not maintainable, then an order can be passed to this effect, however, the Authority cannot sleep over the proceedings and thus, keep the proceedings pending. 5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, including maintainability of said proceedings, these proceedings are disposed of with the direction to the authority concerned that the proceedings be taken to their logical conclusion within a period of six weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous 3 2025:HHC:30062 application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 04, 2025 (narender)