IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.18057 of 2025 Decided on 21st November 2025 Nirmala Devi …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. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 31.10.2025, in terms whereof, a revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had a statutory remedy against the impugned order, in terms of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, by way of an appeal. 2 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade as well as the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order under challenge. 4. As the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, she had a statutory remedy available under Section 14 of the Act to assail the same before the Collector. This is exactly what has been held by the Revisional Authority also. Therefore, as observed hereinabove, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was condemned unheard is belied from the order which demonstrates that the son of the petitioner was present before the Divisional Commissioner on the day when the order was passed. The contention of the petitioner that the son was not present cannot be accepted by the Court for the reason that no mala fides are alleged against the learned Divisional Commissioner as to why he would have marked the presence of the son of the petitioner, if indeed he was not present there. 3 5. Be that as it may, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the present petition is dismissed. The petitioner can invoke the statutory remedy as is available to the petitioner. In case, any appeal is preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority within 30 days from today, then, the same be treated to have been filed within limitation and be decided on merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 21, 2025 (Vinod)