2025:HHC:32064 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.346 of 2025 Decided on: 12.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Ramesh Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.06.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.5043 of 2023, tilted Ramesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Ors., whereby, the writ petition was dismissed and findings were given that the petitioner’s claim for declaration that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed in view of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, was not tenable, as the writ petitioner’s father-tenant had forfeited his rights in the year 1956 to receive compensation and the litigation initiated by his son, as such, therefore, did not find favour with the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:32064 - 2 - learned Single Judge. The specific prayers, as such, made in the writ petition, reads as under:- (i) “That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to work in accordance with the law and if, they intend to acquire the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No.344/317 measuring 00-09-00 Bigha, the same shall be done in accordance with law by following the due procedure as mentioned in Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013. (ii) That a writ in nature of certiorari declaring the acquisition on the basis of notice issued in August, 1956 (Annexure P/7) as unconstitutional and be declared as deemed lapsed in respect to Khasra no.344/317 measuring 00-09-00 bigha situated at Hadbast No.96, Khata/Khatoni No.20/21, Mohal Gural, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. (iii) That a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the mutation no.190 dated 17.05.2023.” 2. It is to be thus noticed that there is also challenge to the mutation proceedings dated 17.05.2023, on the basis of which, the Court had been approached by filing the writ petition. Specific averments were made that the construction over the property was completed in the year 2010 as mentioned in Para-8 of the writ petition and photographs etc. have also been placed on record. 3. The stand of the State regarding this aspect was only that the State was the owner of the disputed land and there is no denial, as such, regarding the construction. It is rather being mentioned that notices have been issued 2025:HHC:32064 - 3 - to remove the encroachments and the Government functionaries are doing their job, as such. 4. A perusal of the said notice dated 13.06.2023 would go on to show that there is mention of raising illegal structure over National Highway on Khasra No.317 and, therefore, directions have been issued to remove the structure by way of demolishing the same. 5. On the last date [06.08.2025], counsel for the appellant had sought instructions as to whether he was willing to withdraw the writ petition on account of the fact that disputed issues had arisen, which could only be addressed after leading evidence. 6. Accordingly, today on 12.09.2025, counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has necessary instructions to withdraw the writ petition as well as the present appeal, so that he can seek legal remedy from the Court of competent jurisdiction in view of the disputed issues being raised. 7. Counsel for the State has submitted that the learned Single Judge had recorded categorical findings against the writ petitioner. However, keeping in view the fact that the plea had been taken on account of acquisition proceedings having lapsed in view of 2013 Act, the fact remains that the award was stated to be passed 2025:HHC:32064 - 4 - in 1956 and mutation proceedings have only been entered in 2023, in favour of the State. 8. Apparently, there is a construction on the spot, which is also evident from the notices issued and photographs, of which specific averments made in Para-8 of the writ petition, have not been denied. 9. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is settled principle of law that the Writ Court would not go into the disputed questions of fact and it would have been more appropriate to the learned Single Judge, as such, to relegate the petitioner to have his remedy before the Civil Court in view of the peculiar facts and to establish, if any, case is made out after taking into account the material facts and evidence, which would have to be necessarily put-forth from both the sides. 10. Resultantly, we allow the appeal as such and dispose it off by permitting the writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition itself and seek his remedy in accordance with law, in view of the disputed issues, which have arisen. 11. It would be for the Court concerned to look into the issues whether any interim relief has to be granted or not, since the observations, which we have made hereinabove, are only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and the principles of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2025:HHC:32064 - 5 - 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, would have to be considered, as such, by the Civil Court. 12. Needless to say observations made by learned Single Judge would not prejudice the Court below, since the issue of lapsing aspect could only have been challenged before this Court and it would not be within the purview of Civil Court. 13. Needless to say, since notices have been issued for demolition, it would be open to the writ petitioner to file Civil Suit within four weeks from today and till then the State would not take any coercive steps. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 12, 2025 [Bhardwaj/Shivender]