Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19741 (HP)

LOLAK RAM v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CWP/11077/2025 · 2025-07-10

Ajay Mohan Goel

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:22175 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11077 of 2025 Decided on: 10.07.2025 Sh. Lolak Ram … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. H.K.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed a Notice that has been assailed by Collector-Cum-DFO Rampur Forest Division Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in terms whereof, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the encroached Government land within 15 days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Notice was received on 03.07.2025 and he further submits that this Notice is in derogation to the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.13362 of 2024, titled Babu Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., alongwith connected matters, decided on 28.11.2024. However, a perusal of the petition demonstrates that besides the impugned Notice no other document is appended therein. Whereas, in terms of the contents of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:22175 impugned Notice certain eviction proceedings were earlier initiated against the petitioner and there probably is an eviction order passed. Learned counsel submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the petition, with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court afresh, but till then the petitioner be protected to the extent that the respondents may not evict him from the land in his possession. 4. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for and it is further observed that no action in terms of Annexure P-1 shall be taken by the respondents by 31.07.2025. If the petitioner fails to approach this Court on or before 31.07.2025, then the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the Notice in issue. 5. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 10, 2025 (Rishi)