2025:HHC:42001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19156 of 2025 Decided on: 05.12.2025 Manvinder 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. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. No notice issued to remaining respondents. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 4 only. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) That during the time the respondent did not supply the order and petitioner did not approach the Ld. Divisional Commissioner due to non-availability of Certified copy of the order passed by the Ld. Collector respondent may kindly be directed to maintain the status qua, w.r.t the suit land. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:42001 b) Quash and set aside the impugned partition order dated 30.11.2024 passed by respondent No. 4 (Tehsildar- cum-Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib), along with the entire consequential proceedings including Fard Kabza, Naksha J and Field Book (Annexures P-3 and P-5), being violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the H.P. Land Revenue Act and suffering from patent illegality. c) Direct respondents No. 1 to 4 to conduct the partition proceedings afresh, strictly in accordance with law and after ensuring valid and proper service upon the petitioner, and after due verification of shares and correct measurement of land. d) Restrain respondents No. 4 and 17 from registering or permitting registration of any sale deed, gift deed, mortgage, lease or any other transfer of land in respect of the property subject-matter of the impugned partition, during the pendency of the writ petition.” 3. This Court asked learned Additional Advocate General to inquire from the Officer concerned, as to why the certified copy of the order is not being made available to the aggrieved party and learned Additional Advocate General, on instruction, informed the Court that certified copy shall be made available to the petitioner tomorrow. His statement is taken on record. 4. The petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction that copy of the order shall be made available to the petitioner 3 2025:HHC:42001 tomorrow. No action on the basis of said order shall be taken at least for three weeks from tomorrow or from such date on which the certified copy is made available to enable the petitioner to enable him to seek appropriate remedy against the said order. However, it is clarified that in case no appeal/revision etc. is preferred by the petitioner within three weeks as from the date of receipt of then this order, then this order will loose its efficacy. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 05, 2025 (Rishi)