2025:HHC:9929 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Ex. Pet. No. 157 of 2025 Date of decision: 08.04.2025 Chattar Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus National Highway Authority of India & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner:s Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Dy. A.G., for respondent No. 2. Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Naib Tehsildar, in person Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) By medium of this petition, the petitioner has sought execution of the order dated 21.11.2018, passed in CWP No. 1895 of 2018, whereby the Divisional Commissioner was directed to decide the appeals, arising out of the partition proceedings, pending before it within a period of two months. 2 2. It is shocking to note that the directions even after lapse of nearly seven years, have not been executed by deciding the appeals. 3. We accordingly requisitioned the record of the Divisional Commissioner to find out the reasons for the same and to say the least, the order sheets reflect a sordid and a sorry state of affairs. 4. Why the Divisional Commissioner has granted more than 100 adjournments is not at all forthcoming? If the parties or their counsel were not cooperating, the Divisional Commissioner, ought to have apprised them about the time bound directions passed by this Court. The order sheets runs into 53 pages and despite that nothing meaningful has come up till date. What the Divisional Commissioner was required is only to decide a simple appeal. 5. In the given facts and circumstances, we direct the Divisional Commissioner to decide the appeal on the date already fixed i.e. 10.04.2025 irrespective of whether the parties cooperate or not. 6. The petition is disposed of accordingly. For compliance to come up on 17.06.2025. 7. Before parting, we need to remind the Divisional Commissioner that once time bound directions have been given 3 by the High Court, the same need to be strictly adhered to and if for any reason whatsoever the timeline cannot be adhered to, then the least that was expected of him or incumbent upon him was to have filed an application for extension of time setting out therein the grounds why the order could not be complied with, but in no event could the Divisional Commissioner have sat over the time bound order of the Court for nearly seven (7) years. Normally, this could have been a fit case where we ought to have initiated contempt proceedings against the Divisional Commissioner, however, taking into consideration the fact that the case is now listed on 10.04.2025, we refrain from doing so. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) 8th April, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)