2025:HHC:23587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5223 of 2023 Decided on: 21.07.2025 Himachali Devi and others … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate for respondent. No. 6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Respondent No. 4, order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Collector and order dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Learned Divisional Commissioner, since the same have been passed by playing fraud and all illegalities and no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioners just to grab their 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23587 land. (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to prepare the Fard Kabja as per the sale deed of the Respondent No. 6, which he has purchased in terms of the sale deed and maintain the possession of the petitioners in Fard Kabja as per the factual position, since the petitioners are cultivating the whole land from last more than 45 years from the time of their predecessors. (iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to take legal action in accordance with law against the Respondent No. 4 & 5 for playing fraud against the petitioners for depriving them to get opportunity of being heard.” 2. This Court is of the considered view that in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the reliefs as prayed for cannot be granted by this Court, more so, as the petitioners are alleging fraud. 3. Learned Counsel for the private respondent has also vehemently argued that there is no infirmity in the orders impugned because it is a matter of record that the petitioners despite service did not appear before the Authority. 4. At this stage, Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw 3 2025:HHC:23587 this petition, with liberty to approach appropriate Fora. This is seriously opposed to by learned Counsel for the private respondent. 5. Be that as it may, as the petitioners are praying for withdrawal of this petition, this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn, but with the observation that in case the petitioners approach appropriate Fora, the same shall be subject to all just exceptions and legal rights of the private respondent. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 21, 2025 (narender)