2025:HHC:5131-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1358 of 2022 Decided on: 07.03.2025 Jagdish Chand … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.7 and 8. Respondent No.9 reported to be dead. None for respondent No.10. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) To quash the impugned order dated 12-04-2020 (Annexure P/8) and further direct the respondent No.3 to execute the orders dated 06-11-2007 passed in Case No.9/2007 and 10/2007. b) to direct the respondent No.3 to sanction/attest the mutation also also transfer the possession of the partitioned land in favour of the petitioner. c) To direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to initiate enquiry against the respondent No.3 for willfully and deliberately not sanctioning the mutation and also not transferring the possession of the partitioned land in favour of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:5131-DB petitioner.” 2. In terms of impugned Annexure P/8, the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by assigning the following reasons:- “On considering the arguments put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the contents of revision petition and record attached therewith it is clear that the present petition has been preferred for execution of orders dated 6.11.2007, passed by the Lid Assistant Collector 1 Grade, Arki District Solan The present petition has been preferred under Section 17 of the H.P Land Revenue Act, 1954, which empowers this Court to call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer subordinate to him. Sub-Section (4) of the said Section provides that this court may pass such order as he thinks bit provided that an order reversing on modifying any proceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer and effecting ans question right between private person shall not be passed without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard These powers are revisionary in nature whereas the instant petition has been preferred for execution of order of Assistant Collector Grade. Thus, the present petition is not maintainable and as such the same is not admitted. Since this matter was reserved for order after hearing on 6.04.2021, this order be conveyed to the lat. Counsel to the petitioners, immediately. This file be consigned to record room after due completion.” 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the represented parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in this order because in case the petitioner is of 3 2025:HHC:5131-DB the considered view that the order in issue has not yet been executed, then it is for the petitioner to approach the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade for execution thereof. Incidently, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the represented parties submits that the order in fact has been executed. 4. Be that as it may, at this stage, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner is of the view that the order has not been executed in totality, then he may approach Assistant Collector, 1st Grade for execution thereof, who may decide the application in accordance with law by adhering to the principles of natural justice. If any such application is filed within a period of four weeks from today, then endeavour be made to decide the same within a period of six months as from the date of filing thereof. However, it is clarified that this Court has not made any observation as far as the merit of the case is concerned and the Authority concerned shall be at liberty even to adjudicate on the point as to whether the application is hit by the Law of Limitation or principles of delays and latches. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 07 , 2025 (Rishi)