IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1658 of 2018 Decided on 16th December 2025 Rajender Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the notice/order dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure P-4) and the respondent state may be directed to decide the Annexure P-2 and P-3.” 2. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the same has been passed in compliance to the directions 2 passed by this Court in RSA No.214 of 2017, titled as Meena Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. This Court has gone through the order that was passed in RSA No.214 of 2017 and the same is quoted hereinbelow:- “Affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur is not at all satisfactory. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur after coordinating with the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Bilaspur and Superintending Engineer, HPPWD, shall file a detailed affidavit clearly disclosing therein the status of 345 cases of encroachments that had already been directed to be removed by the Deputy Commissioner. 3. In addition thereto, he shall also set-out the details of the other cases of encroachments that are pending before the other competent authorities and time frame within which the same are proposed to be decided. 4. It is further made clear that there is no necessity for the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Bilaspur and Superintending Engineer, HPPWD to file the cases of eviction under the H.P.Public Premises Act where such an encroachment stands duly acknowledged by the respective encroachers and the authorities shall straightway proceed to evict such encroachers in a time bound manner. List on 6.3.2018. Copy dasti.” 3. In terms of the directions passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal, Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Bilaspur and other authorities were directed that there would be no necessity to file cases of eviction to remove the 3 encroachments of those who had acknowledged the encroachment upon the Government land. Annexure P-2 appended with the petition demonstrates that the petitioner who was a Bhakhra Dam oustee was allotted some land in lieu thereof and encroachment was carried out by the petitioner contiguous to the said land allotted to him. In the light of the fact that this encroachment has been admitted by the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-2, obviously, the order in the Regular Second Appeal that in such like cases eviction proceedings are not to be initiated binds the petitioner as well as the authorities and in these circumstances as this Court does not finds any occasion to interfere with the impugned order, the petition is dismissed. 4. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 16, 2025 (Vinod)