2025:HHC:34570 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.698 of 2025 Decided on: 8.10.2025 Ravinder Singh ......Appellant Versus State of H.P. & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Singh Jamwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice(Oral) Consideration is sought of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No.15033 of 2025, decided on 17.09.2025, whereby, the writ petition was dismissed, by relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy under H.P Land Revenue Act while referring to Section 46 of the said Act, which provides that a party can file a suit for declaratory decree, if aggrieved by an entry in a record of rights under Chapter 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Liberty was also given to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:34570 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such was not invoked. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entry in the revenue record was made at the back, as such on the basis of Will dated 3.5.2018, which was registered having Registration No.84/2018 before the Sub-Registrar, Kangra. It is as such further argued that the ancestral property in favour of respondent No.4 has been bequeathed without the consent of the other co-sharers/co-parceners and without the authentication of the Will from the District Judge in the form of probate/letter of Administration and therefore, the transfer of ownership was done wrongly. 3 The learned Single Judge has also noticed that it was a dispute inter se the family, as the father of the petitioner, i.e., late Shri Pritam Chand had bequeathed the property apparently to the grand son, namely, Shri Sumit Guleria, respondent No.4, who is son of Shri Satinder Singh Guleria. As to be noticed, the appellant herein is another son of the deceased. 4. We have gone through the Will as such also, which has been appended which is a registered Will and the executant had expired in the year 2024 and was living with private respondent No.4. We do not wish to comment upon the veracity and the authenticity of the Will as that would be a 2025:HHC:34570 matter of consideration before the Court concerned, where the appellant has been relegated. It is a settled principle that Writ Court is not to invoke its jurisdiction where disputed issues are concerned. Apparently, it is a question to be answered by the Court of competent jurisdiction as the Will is being sought to be challenged apparently by one of the legal heirs of the deceased. 5. In such circumstances, keeping in view the law laid down in United Bank of India Versus Satyawati Tondon and others (2010) 8 SCC 110, wherein it has specifically mentioned that once there is an alternative remedy, the Writ Court would not exercise its jurisdiction. As noticed also disputed issues would arise, which are not to be decided in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant has been relegated to the remedy before the court of competent jurisdiction. 6. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice October 8, 2025 (mamta) ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge