2025:HHC:38940 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 251 of 2025 Decided on : 18.11.2025 Shri Gopal Singh …Petitioner Versus Smt. Meera Devi and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, very humbly prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed in revision petition no. 25/2020 titled as Gopal Singh versus Meera whereby the order 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:38940 dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner Shimla has been upheld whereby the Ld. Divisional Commissioner has dismiss the appeal of the petitioner by upholding the order dated 16.06.2017 passed by ld. Settlement officer division Shimla in case no.87/2015 titled as Smt. Meera Devi versus State of H.P. may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the subsequent proceedings on the basis of wrong and illegal order dated 16.06.2017 may kindly be order to be quashed being nullity in the eyes of law and mutation no.53 dated 25.08.2017 sanctioned without hearing the present petitioner may kindly also be order to be set aside by allowing the present petition, in the interest of justice.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application that was filed by the private respondent herein for correction of the records before the Settlement Officer, Shimla, stood decided, at the back of the petitioner without associating the petitioner with the process. 3. A perusal of the record demonstrates that after the receipt of the application from respondent Meera Devi, the Settlement Officer passed order dated 16.06.2017, which as 3 2025:HHC:38940 per the petitioner, adversely affects him. Though the record demonstrates that the petitioner was associated by the Authority in the course of the spot inspection and the respondent had stated before the Authority that he was not satisfied with the spot inspection and he had also filed his objections thereto, yet in terms of order dated 16.06.2017, Annexure P-3, the objections of the petitioner were neither dealt with nor referred to. The Appeal and Revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Settlement Collector, were dismissed by the Authorities without appreciating this aspect of the matter. 4. Though learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that a perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner demonstrates that the objections filed by the petitioner were taken into consideration by the said Authority, however, this Court is of the considered view that because the objections were filed before the Settlement Officer, therefore, as the Settlement Officer failed to take into consideration the said objections while passing order dated 16.06.2017, the order passed by the Authority is non est in the eyes of law. Because 4 2025:HHC:38940 the first order itself is non est in the eyes of law, the subsequent orders passed by the Authorities also are not sustainable in the eyes of law for this flaw in the proceedings that was under taken by the Settlement Officer. 5. At this stage, a request has been made that in these circumstances, let the matter be remanded back to Settlement Officer with a direction that the said Officer should decide the case within some time bound period. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders i.e. order dated 16.06.2017, passed by learned Settlement Officer, Shimla (Annexure P-3), order dated 16.11.2019, passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla (Annexure P-2) and order dated 12.06.2024, passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla (Annexure P-1) and by remanding the matter back to the Settlement Officer, with the direction that the Authority shall decide the application filed by Smt. Meera Devi afresh after taking into consideration the objections of the present petitioner and after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Authority shall pass an order in accordance with 5 2025:HHC:38940 law, without being influenced by any observation that has been made by this Court in the present order. Endeavour shall be made by the Authority to pass the final order in the proceedings on or before 31.01.2026. 7. It is clarified that none of the parties shall be given any further opportunity to place any material on record and the Authority shall decide the case on the basis of the material already on record. The only right which stands conferred upon the petitioner by this Court is the right of hearing on the strength of the objections, which already stand filed. Parties to appear before the Settlement officer on 03.12.2025 and apprise him of the order passed by the Court. 8. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 18, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)