2025:HHC:7432 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1980 of 2023 Decided on: 24.03.2025 Rameshwar Singh … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Addl. AG for respondents-State. : Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 6. : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate for respondents No. 7 to 10. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, dated 28.06.2022 (Annexure P-4), in terms whereof, the petition filed by the predecessor –in-interest of the present respondents No. 3 to 5 alongwith respondent No. 6 herein under Section 54 of the H.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the 1971 Act’ for short), against order(s) dated 9th to 11th March, 1990, passed by A.C.O. Sarkaghat, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:7432 District Mandi, H.P., was allowed by the Authority. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the record of the case and has submitted that the application, which was filed under Section 54 of the 1971 Act, was preferred after more than 30 years after the events took place. Yet, despite an objection taken by the petitioner in this regard, the Authority did not dwell the issue of delay and laches and went on to adjudicate the petition on merit. Learned Counsel further submitted that even on merit, the order is per se bad. He further submitted that the Authority erred in not appreciating that there was already a civil litigation pending between the parties and filing of petition under Section 54 of the 1971 Act was nothing but an abuse of the process of law, which important aspect of the matter was conveniently ignored by the Authority. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 6 has submitted that the order passed by the Authority is a well reasoned order and the petition under Section 54 of the 1971 Act was filed immediately after cause of action accrued in favour of the respondents. He submitted that it was clearly stated in the petition filed under Section 54 of the 1971 Act as to why the same was being 3 2025:HHC:7432 filed in the year 2021. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there was no concealment of fact as far as the respondents are concerned and on merit, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Authority below and this petition being devoid of any merit, deserves dismissal. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that what was assailed by way of petition filed under Section 54 of the 1971 Act were the entries made in the revenue record by the revenue authorities in between 9 to 11 of March, 1990. In terms of the impugned order, the Authority has allowed the petition and directed the revenue authority to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue record in terms of the prayer of the petitioner therein. Reply filed to the said petition is also on record and in the said reply, preliminary objections were taken that the petition was barred by limitation having been filed after 30 years and also on the ground that there was a civil litigation pending with regard to a part of the suit land before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Court No. 2, Sarkaghat. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that there is no discussion therein by the Authority on the issue of delay and laches. Though, in terms of the provisions of 4 2025:HHC:7432 the 1971 Act, there is no time period prescribed as to within what period, a petition under Section 54 of the 1971 Act can be filed but it is settled law that the parties have to approach the Authority within some reasonable period. By no stretch of imagination, at the first glance, period of 31 years can be stated to be a reasonable period. 6. Be that as it may, in the light of an objection already having been taken by the petitioner before the Authority with regard to delay in filing of the petition, the Authority was duty bound to adjudicate the same and the act of the Authority of not passing any order on this issue renders the order per se bad in law. Not only this, there is no discussion in the impugned order with regard to the factum of pendency of the civil litigation also and its effect if any on the petition filed under Section 54 of the 1971 Act is concerned. This also demonstrates that the impugned order has been passed by the Authority without any application of quasi judicial mind. 7. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, in case No. 08/21 (Annexure P-4), is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authority for adjudication afresh with the direction that the Authority shall hear the parties on the issue of delay and laches and also with regard to the factum of pendency of civil litigation and pass 5 2025:HHC:7432 a reasoned order. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation on the merit of the case and the Authority will decide the case on its own merit, uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in the course of disposal of this petition. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 24, 2025 (narender)