Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22018 (HP)

RANJOT SINGH v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/13994/2025 · 2025-09-09

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:30858 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13994 of 2025 Decided on: 09.09.2025 Ranjot Singh … 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. Kunal Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents- State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner for demarcation has been rejected by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Pajhota, Nihri, District Sirmour, H.P. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition, on the ground that the order under challenge is appealable in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has a statutory remedy, but the reason as to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:30858 why the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked is that the order has been passed by the Authority without hearing the petitioner. 3. This Court is of the considered view that this is no ground to avoid or evade the statutory remedy which is available to the petitioner under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that the grounds which are being urged before this Court to assail the impugned order are not available before the Appellate Authority. 4. Therefore, this petition is dismissed, but with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. It goes without saying that the time spent by the petitioner while pursuing this remedy before this Court shall be taken into consideration while calculating limitation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 09, 2025 (Rishi)