2025:HHC:20052 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10229 of 2025 Decided on: 26.06.2025 Deep Ram alias Kuldeep Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice is being confined to respondents No.1 to 3 only. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3-State. 2. As no order prejudicial to the interest of respondent No.4 is being passed by the Court, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General, this petition is being disposed of at this stage. 3. The petitioner has suffered orders of eviction under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. 4. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:20052 submits that interest of justice would be served in case this petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for exchange of the land, with further direction to the Authority concerned to decide the same sympathetically within some reasonable time and till then, the eviction order be not given effect. 5. As the prayer made for by the learned counsel for the petitioner is an innocuous one, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of any such representation being made by the petitioner in accordance with law for exchange of land, the same be considered and disposed of by the Authority sympathetically, if permissible in law, within a period of three months as from the date of receipt thereof, after hearing the petitioner and till then the decision is passed on the representation of the petitioner, the eviction order passed against the petitioner be not given effect. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation as far as the merits of the issue are concerned. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 26, 2025 (Rishi)