IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.664 of 2018 Decided on 19th September 2025 Nikka Ram and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Simran, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents. Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 11. Respondent No.35(i) to 35(iv) and 36(i) ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the orders dated 23.02.2016 Annexure P-1 and 06.10.2017 Annexure P-2 being unjust, illegal, arbitrary, in colourable exercise of powers, violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, against all canons of Law and Principles of Natural Justice. 2 ii) To direct the respondent No. 2, the Learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, to hear the case afresh after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the present petitioners.” 2. On an objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that as there is a statutory bar with regard to the review of an order passed by the authority under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be allowed to give up their challenge with regard to Annexure P-2 dated 06.10.2017 and the petitioners shall confine their contention in this petition only to order dated 23.02.2016. Ordered accordingly. 3. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-1, order dated 23.02.2016, passed by Divisional Commissioner Mandi, in the proceedings initiated under Section 54 of the 1971, Act and has submitted that this order was procured by the petitioners therein at the back of the present petitioners. In order to substantiate his contention, learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-4, which is the copy of a Civil Suit filed by some of 3 the respondents herein. He submitted that in the said Civil Suit, an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioners for their impleadment as defendants in the month of March, 2014 on the ground that they had subsequently purchased the property. This application of their’s was allowed on 16.10.2014. Yet, no endeavor was made by the petitioners/respondents herein in the proceedings initiated by then under Section 54 of the 1971, Act to implead the petitioners as a party after the application of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed and then allowed. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC stood filed in the month of March, 2014, therefore, even at the time of filing of the proceedings under Section 54 which is filed on 06.06.2014, they were aware of the fact that the present petitioners had moved an application for their impleadment in the Civil Suit. Learned Senior Counsel, thus, submits that now in the light of the fact that the petitioners shall take advantage of this order, the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 4 4. This is seriously opposed to by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 11, who submits that the proceedings in the Civil Suit shall be decided on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence which the parties shall lead therein and as far as the order passed by the authority Annexure P-1 is concerned there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the light of the fact that a Civil Suit is already pending in which the petitioners herein have been impleaded as party, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in case, these proceedings are disposed of without making any observation on merit but with the observation that in the event of Annexure P-1 being produced in evidence by either of the parties before the learned Trial Court, then, the present petitioners shall be at liberty to raise the issue of their not being impleaded as party in said proceedings and effect thereof, obviously will be gone into by the learned Trial Court. 5 6. With these observations, petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 19, 2025 (Vinod)