2025:HHC:23189-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6344 of 2021 Decided on: 17.07.2025 Mushraf Ali … Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents- State. Mr. Vivekanand, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, respondents No.6 to 10. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) That Respondents No.3 & 4 may kindly be directed to initiate appropriate legal action against the Respondents No.6 to 10 for and illegally raising wrongly the construction over the property belonging to Respondent No.5 more particularly described in the Jamabandi for the year 2014-15 (Annexure-P-12) and to demolish the illegal structure raised by the predecessor in interest and Respondents No.6 to 10. b) The Respondent No 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to take suitable action against the erring Revenue Officials especially the Tehsildar, for not complying with the directions issued by this Hon'ble in RSA No. 47 of 1992, who has passed the orders dated 14.3.2015 in case No. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23189-DB 13/2012 and to quash the order dated 14.3.2015 passed by Asstt. Collector, Grade-1 (Tehsildar) Nahan Distt. Sirmour, HP in case No.13/2012.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as the Authorities concerned are not acting against the private respondents who are violating the law, therefore, the petitioner has been compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that filing of this petition is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law, for the reason that the petitioner is seeking direction by way of a mandamus which are akin to seeking execution of the decree passed by learned Civil Court mentioned in the relief clause. Learned counsel further submitted that there are revenue entries existing in favour of the said respondents which have attained finality as the same were not challenged within the period of limitation as is prescribed under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and without resorting to the said alternative remedies which are statutory in nature, the petitioner has filed this petition belatedly just to harass the private respondents. 4. Having read the pleadings carefully and having heard the submission made by learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that no mandamus as is being prayed for can be issued to the respondents as the dispute that has 3 2025:HHC:23189-DB been raised by the petitioner cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed on this count. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that the dismissal of the petition should not come in the way of the petitioner in approaching the Authorities concerned for the redressal of the issues raised in this petition. The petitioner, if so advised, can do so, but the same shall obviously be subject to all just exceptions and legal rights of the private respondents. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 17, 2025 (Rishi)