2025:HHC:31716 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 93 of 2016 Decided on : 15.09.2025 Sh. Laxmi Dutt …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Kulwant Singh Katoch, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No. 21454 of 2025 This application is disposed of by taking on record the documents appended therewith. CMPMO No. 93 of 2016 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 19.09.2015, passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, H.P., in Appeal No. 142/12 titled as Laxmi Dutt Versus State of H.P., in terms whereof, order dated 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31716 07.03.2012, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Collector, Solan, in Case No. 56/13A of 2009, was upheld by the learned Divisional Commissioner. 3. When this case was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the documents appended with CMP No.21454 of 2025, which has been allowed today. He submitted that during the pendency of this petition, a fresh demarcation was carried out which demonstrates that there is no alleged encroachment upon the Government land by the petitioner and the house constructed by the petitioner is on his own land. He further submitted that this demarcation was carried out in the presence of the officials of the respondents and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, the appellate order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Appellate Authority to reconsider the Appeal, by taking into consideration the documents appended with the application, specifically the demarcation report. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in light of the fact that there is no 3 2025:HHC:31716 perversity with the impugned order and as the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land, the intent of the petitioner is to delay the decision in the matter. 5. To counter this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also interested in the early adjudication of the issue and time bound directions can be given to the Authority to decide the case and the petitioner is not averse to any fresh demarcation of the area in issue to ascertain as to whether the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land or not. 6. In light of the respective contentions raised by the parties and further in light of the fact that there indeed is a fresh demarcation which has been carried out by the Revenue Authorities in the year 2020, this Court is of the considered view that without making any observation on the said demarcation, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, this petition is disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and by ordering the Appellate Authority to hear the Appeal afresh by taking into consideration the documents, which have been placed on record in this case filed 4 2025:HHC:31716 by the petitioner. 7. Ordered accordingly. This petition is disposed of by setting aside impugned order dated 19.09.2015, passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, H.P., in Appeal No. 142/12 titled as Laxmi Dutt Versus State of H.P., with further direction that the Appeal is to be restored to its original number and learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, H.P. is instructed to decide the same afresh. The petitioner herein will be given an opportunity to place on record the documents which have been placed on record in this case file along-with CMP No. 21454 of 2025. In case, the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, so deems fit, he may either decide the Appeal in light of the pleadings before it as well as the documents that may be filed by the petitioner and counter thereto, if any, by the respondents or if the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, so deems fit, he can also order fresh demarcation of the land to which neither of the parties shall have any objection, to ascertain as to whether there is any encroachment upon the Government land. 8. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending 5 2025:HHC:31716 miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 15, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)