2025:HHC:22858 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11351 of 2025 Decided on: 16.07.2025 Jaswant Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the petition may very kindly be allowed and the respondents be commanded with a writ of mandamus to correct & decide afresh mutation number i.e., 435 as reported by the Patwari, involving the land in lis. As the Field Kangoo, has so submitted to Tehsildar. The respondent No. 2 being the Collector and possess the power of review and being over all in charge of the Revenue Record, be commanded to do the needful with regard to the correction of mutation No. 435, any other or further order which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:22858 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the documents appended with the writ petition and has submitted that the revenue authorities have admitted the factum of wrong entry in attestation of mutation, i.e. mutation No. 435 and thereafter has referred the matter to the superior authority i.e. respondent No. 2 as it is this authority, which can sanction correction of the mutation by way of a review. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel prayed that a direction be issued to the authority concerned to order the review of mutation concerned. 3. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the matter, which has been referred to respondent No. 2 by respondents No. 3 and 4, be decided expeditiously by respondent No. 2, in accordance with law and in accordance with communications that have been made by respondents No. 3 and 4 to respondent No. 2. Let needful be done within a period of four weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 15, 2025 (narender)