2025:HHC:31871 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.77 of 2020 Decided on: 16.09.2025 Dharam Chand & others … Petitioners Versus The Collector, Sub-Division, Dharamshala, & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Respondents No.4 to 6 and 13 ex parte. None for remaining respondents. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(a) That impugned order dated 24.09.2019 as contained in Annexure P-2 (Colly) being illegal and perverse, may very kindly be quashed and set aside, to secure the ends of law and justice.” 2. Impugned order dated 24.09.2019, is passed by the Collector, Sub-Divisional, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., which 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31871 reads as under:- “Case called. Present. Case was filed for 26.11.2019. Taken up today due to application for preponement filed by the applicant Counsel and prayed for staying the operation of impugned order dated 18/06/2018. There is prima facie a case in four of the appellant and appellant may suffer an irreparable loss if stay is not granted. The balance of convenience also seems to be fall in favour of the appellant. In view of the above averments application u/o 41, Rule 5 CPC is allowed. The operation of impugned order dated 18/06/2018 is stayed till next date of hearing, 26.11.2019. 3. The response that has been filed to the present proceedings by the State demonstrates that the stay was granted by the Collector was only till the next date of hearing and thereafter, the same was not extended. 4. Be that as it may, in light of the fact that the petitioners approached this Court against an order passed by the Collector, this Court is of the considered view that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioners had statutory remedy, which was not exhausted. 5. Section 14 of the Land Revenue Act provides as under:- “14. Appeals.- Save as otherwise provided by this Act, an appeal shall lie from original or appellate order of a Revenue Officer as follows, namely:- (a) to the Collector when the order is made by an 3 2025:HHC:31871 Assistant Collector of either grade; (b) to the Commissioner 1[*****] when the order is made by a Collector; (c) to the Financial Commissioner when the order is made by the Commissioner: Provided that – (i) when an original order is confirmed on first appeal, a further appeal shall not lie; (ii) when any such order is modified or reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order made by the Commissioner on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final.” 6. Section 17 of the Land Revenue Act provides as under:- “17. Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue Officers. (1)The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before [or disposed of by] [Inserted by section 3 of HP. Act of 1955.] any Revenue Officer subordinate to him. (2) A commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer under his control. (3) If any case in which a Commissioner or Collector has called for a record he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. (4) The Financial Commissioner may in any case called for by himself under sub-section (1) or reported to him 4 2025:HHC:31871 under sub-section (3) pass such order as he thinks fit:Provided that he shall not under this section pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer and effecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard.” 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners though has vehemently submitted that because the impugned order was just an interlocutory order and the Authority could not have passed the same without deciding the application filed for condonation of delay as till the time the application for condonation of delay was not decided, there was no matter before the Court, however, this Court is of the considered view that this issue could have been raised by the petitioners before the appropriate Authority. This Court does not concurs with the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners that against the kind of order which has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court, the provisions of Sections 14 or 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act are not applicable. 8. Section 14 of the Land Revenue Act provides that an appeal shall lie from original or appellate order of the Revenue Authority to the Authorities mentioned therein. Further, Section 17 of the land Revenue Act provides that the Authorities mentioned therein may at any stage call for the record of any case pending 5 2025:HHC:31871 before any Revenue Officer subordinate to them. 9. This Court is of the considered view that Section 17 of the Land Revenue Act always confers the power upon the Subordinate Revenue Authority to call for the record of the inferior Revenue Authority, if the said Authority exercises jurisdiction either not vested in it or with material irregularity as is the case pleaded by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court does not concurs with the learned Counsel that the impugned order was not assailable under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. 10. In light of above observation, this petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to avail remedy against the said order in accordance with law subject to all just exceptions. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 1 6 , 2025 (Rishi)