2025:HHC:3640 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2399 of 2025 Decided on: 27.02.2025 Sh. Desh Raj & others … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4-State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 11-12-2-24 passed by respondent No.1 in Revision Petition No.587/2024 (Annexure P-4), order dated 07-09- 2024 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.64/2009 (Annexure P-3), order dated 22-12-2008 passed by the respondent No.3 in case No.33/08 (Annexure P-2)”. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3640 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders that have been passed by the Quassi Judicial Authorities in exercise of the power conferred under Sections 14 and 17 of the Himachal Prdesh Land Revenue Act, in terms whereof, initially an Appeal filed against the partition proceedings by appellants, namely, Dayalu Ram and Binta Devi was accepted by Collector, Kangra Sub-Division, Kangra, Tehsil & District Kangra, H.P., vide order dated 22.12.2008 and the subsequent Appeal and Revision filed against the said order by the present petitioners stand rejected. 4. The initial appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority feeling convinced by the factum of the Revenue Authority having finalised the partition in-contravention of the mode of partition and that too at the back of the appellants. 5. The order passed by the Collector in the said appeal, dated 22.12.2008, has been upheld in the Appeal and Revision filed by the present petitioners. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the order passed by the Quassi Judicial Authorities, this Court does not finds any infirmity therein as it could not be disputed that the Revenue Authority had in fact infracted with the mode of partition and that too at the back of the effected parties. 3 2025:HHC:3640 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that interest of justice would be served in case it is observed by the Court that the partition proceedings be now finalized by the Authority concerned as expeditiously as possible. 8. In view of the fact that this prayer is innocuous, the petition is disposed of without interfering with the orders impugned, but with the observation that an endeavour be made by the Revenue Authority to finalize the partition proceedings as expeditiously as possible by adhering the principles of natural justice and preferably by 30.06.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge February 27, 2025 (Rishi)