2025:HHC:29621 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 785 of 2019 Decided on: 01.09.2025 Mohinder Singh … Petitioner Versus Sub Divisonal Officer (Civil) and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. H.K.S. Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3. : Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed Annexure A-2, which is a spot report furnished by Tehsildar, Dhatwal, Tehsil Badsar, District Hamirpur, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, on the subject “status report qua CMPMO No. 466/2017, titled as Maan Singh vs. Gram Panchayat Samela and others”. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29621 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the impugned Annexure P-2, this Court is of the considered view that this petition is completely mis-conceived. A perusal of the order that has been passed by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO No. 466 of 2017, titled as Man Singh vs. Gram Panchayat Samaila and others, in terms whereof, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench was pleased to dispose of said CMPMO as under:- “Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of and matter is remanded back to the learned Collector with a direction to call for the report from the spot and verify the factum, if any, with regard to damage/interference, if any, caused to the private property of the petitioner i.e khasra No.1664 by the Gram Panchayat or other residents. In case allegations having been made by the petitioner is found to be correct, suitable direction may be issued to the revenue agency to remove the encroachment. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.” 3. Thus it is evident that in terms of the direction that was passed by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench, the matter was remanded back to the learned Collector to call for a report from the spot and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in the matter. It appears that Annexure P-2 was nothing but an exercise that was undertaken in consonance with the direction that was passed by this Court. In this 3 2025:HHC:29621 view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that assailing the said status report or spot report by way of this petition is not sustainable in law. This status report was and is to be presented before the Collector who thereafter has to take a call thereupon, after hearing the parties in terms of the directions that have been passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that certain observations are contained in the status report in terms whereof the road itself has been closed, but this not only has been opposed to by learned Counsel for the opposite party, but otherwise also, this Court is also of the considered view that these contentions can be raised by the parties before the learned Collector who can take a call thereupon and decide the case. It also goes without saying that in case the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the said spot report, then he can always file objections thereto before the authority concerned, who can thereafter decide the matter intra the parties. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable and it is for the Authority below to decide the case in consonance with the directions passed by this Court in CMPMO No. 466 of 2017. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 01, 2025 (narender)