IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16889 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.8.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Ms. Renu Korrin ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Jhingan and Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for main following reliefs: “A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and/or in exercise of the powers of under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned communication/ order dated 30.01.2025, bearing Letter No. REV.B(F)10-158/2023, issued by the Respondent No.1-Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the Petitioner's application for permission to sell the property under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 has been rejected. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to decide the Petitioner's application for permission to sell the property, namely M/s Korrin's Hotels & Hutments, under Section 118 of the 2 H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, strictly in accordance with law and the binding Government instructions dated 15.03.2012, and without relying upon the objections and considerations recorded in the impugned communication/ order dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure P-1). C. In view of the fact that the Petitioner, a 74-year-old spinster suffering from serious ailments and financial constraints, is unable to continue managing the property, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct that her application be decided within a short and time bound period, keeping in mind her advanced age, ill health and extenuating circumstances.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate, is that application/representation filed by petitioner, seeking therein permission to sell the property i.e. M/s Korrin's Hotels & Hutments, Barog, which was purchased by the petitioner after obtaining permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has not been decided by the competent authority in accordance with law as well as binding government instructions dated 15.03.2012, rather same has been decided on the basis of judgment dated 05.08.2005 passed by this Court in RSA No. 238 of 2004, titled as Anush Prem Korian and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., and judgment dated 25.08.2005 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16992 of 2005, titled as Anush Prem Korian and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., which 3 have attained finality. Mr. Jhingan, stated that suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner against the seller was decreed, which was challenged by the respondent-State by way of filing separate suit and same was decreed up to Hon'ble Apex Court, but thereafter, order dated 23.09.2013, came to be issued by Deputy Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, conveying therein approval to purchase the land in the State of Himachal Pradesh pursuant to decision taken by the Council of Ministers in its meeting dated 04.09.2013. Mr. Jhingan stated that after passing of aforesaid order, sale deed was executed on 10.09.2014 in favour of petitioner and since then, she is the owner of the property in question and has been running the hotel in the name and style of M/s Korrin's Hotels & Hutments, Barog. He further submitted that since petitioner is an unmarried woman, having no one to look after her properties, she filed an application/representation, seeking therein permission to sell the property, but such prayer of her has been rejected vide communication dated 30.01.2025 on totally absurd and untenable grounds. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed detailed reply, wherein factum with regard to petitioner’s having acquired ownership of the property in question pursuant 4 to approval granted by the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 04.09.2013 has not been disputed, however, an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner for further sale of the property on the ground that ex-post facto sanction granted by the Council of Ministers on 04.09.2013 was erroneous for the reason that same is in direct conflict with the judgments passed by this Court in the legal proceedings detailed hereinabove. 4. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to set up a case that some vigilance inquiry was proposed to be initiated and matter is still under consideration, but admittedly, no document has been adduced on record to substantiate the aforesaid plea. Mr. Kahol, stated that though order dated 30.01.2025 cannot be said to be passed in violation of provisions contained under Section 118 of the Act, but yet, having taken note of objections raised at the behest of the petitioner, respondent-State shall have no objection in deciding the application dated 23.03.2023 filed by the petitioner afresh, strictly in terms of provisions of Section 118 of the Act as well as in terms of instructions dated 15.03.2012, if in existence or not superseded. 5. Though having carefully perused order dated 30.01.2025 vis-à- vis objections raised in the instant petition qua passing of order laid 5 challenge in the instant proceedings, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing petitioner that since permission was granted to the petitioner to purchase the land on 23.09.2013 pursuant to approval given by the Council of Ministers in its meeting dated 04.09.2013, there was no occasion, if any, for respondent to reject the application filed by the petitioner herein, seeking therein permission to sell the land further on the basis of judgments passed in RSA as well as SLP as detailed hereinabove, rather, same should have been decided independently without being influenced by the outcome of aforesaid proceedings that too strictly in terms of provisions of Section 118 of the Act and binding guidelines dated 15.03.2012, but since learned Additional Advocate General has fairly stated that application dated 23.03.2023 filed by the petitioner shall be decided afresh strictly in accordance with law, this Court need not go into the aforesaid aspect of the matter and as such, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent-State to decide the application dated 23.03.2023 (Annexure P-11) afresh strictly in terms of provisions under Section 118 of the Act as well as binding guidelines expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking 6 order. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. August 18, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge