IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 11583 of 2025 Decided on 29th July, 2025 Tarsem Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) “That the respondents may kindly be directed to immediately correct the revenue records by deleting the word ‘Dudhar’ and restoring the original name of Up Mohal ‘Upperli Bijhari’ in accordance with the original proceedings, in the Settlement Records of ‘Up Mohal Upperli Bijhari’ of Tehsil Bijhari, District Hamirpur. 2 (ii) That the letter dated 31.12.2005 and 06.01.2006 at Annexure P-3 whereby instead of new ‘Up Mohal Upperli Bijhari’, the name ‘Up Mohal Dudher Upperli Bijhari’ has been directed to be created, may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners at length and having perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is completely misconceived. 3. The petitioners are approaching this Court for quashing of letters dated 31.12.2005 and 06.01.2006, wherein, Up Mohal Upperli Bijhari has been now entered as Up Mohal Dudher Upperli Bijhari. Further relief prayed for in the petition is that a mandamus be issued directing the Authority to correct the revenue record by deleting the word (Dudhar) and restoring the original name of UP Mohal (Upperli Bijhari) in accordance with the original proceedings in the settlement record etc. 4. It is observed that the reliefs as are prayed for in this writ petition cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also, there is nothing in the 3 petition to substantiate as to why the petitioners are approaching this Court for the quashing of communications dated 31.12.2005 and 06.01.2006 after two decades. 5. Therefore, as this Court does not finds any reason to entertain this belated petition, the same is dismissed in limine. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 29, 2025 (Vinod)