IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.677 of 2025 Date of Decision: 9.1.2025 _____________________________________________________________ Jahir Abbas ……...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.c. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vishal Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite there being repeated complaints, no action is being taken against the private respondent, who, despite his being encroacher upon the government land, is also holding the post of Pradhan. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that bare perusal of documents annexed with the petition itself suggests that pursuant to complaints filed by the petitioner, action - 2 - under Section 163 of the HP Land Revenue Act, was initiated against the private respondent, but same could not be taken to its logical end on account of report submitted by the Tehsildar, Jawali, dated 23.2.2022 (Annexure P-7), wherein he apprised the District Panchayat Officer, District Kangra that though State Government has been shown to be owner of the land in question, but same is in possession of the private respondent for quite long. 3. While refuting the aforesaid submission of learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vishal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited attention of this Court to the judgment dated 16.5.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in CS No. 26 of 2006 (titled Ram Chand deceased through his legal heirs v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.) filed by the private respondents, wherein plea of private respondent, claiming possession qua Khasra Nos. 1805 and 1806 allegedly encroached by him has been decided against him. He states that since competent court of law has already held possession of the private respondents qua aforesaid Khasra numbers to be bad in law, there is no impediment in initiating proceedings under Section 163 of the Act. 4. Having regard to the nature of prayer as well as order proposed to be passed by this Court, this Court sees no justification to call for reply from the respondents and issue notice to the private - 3 - respondent, who otherwise in terms of instant order shall be afforded due opportunity by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, to put forth his stance. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without commenting upon the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, to ensure that complaint filed by the petitioner dated 19.10.2021 (Annexure P-2), is taken to its logical end, expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stake holders, especially private respondent, would also take note of judgment dated 16.5.2015 passed in CS No. 26 of 2006, provided same has attained finality. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications also stand disposed of. January 9, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge