1 ( 2026:HHC:20022 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8427 of 2026 Decided on: 26.05.2026 Nathwinder Singh and others …..Petitioners Versus Thakran Ram Gopal Temple and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 & 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, learned counsel and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3, respectively. 1(i). An eviction petition was filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners under Section 14 read with Sections 7, 5 & 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (in short, the Act) on 12.10.2020. The Sub-Divisional Collector-cum- Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Nurpur (respondent No.2) on 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:20022 ) 28.10.2025 allowed the aforesaid petition ordering eviction of petitioners from the subject land and the structure. Petitioners were also directed to pay the arrears of rent to respondent No.1 as quantified in the order. 1(ii). Petitioners presented an appeal on 30.03.2026 against the aforesaid order before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra under Section 9 of the Act. It is the case of the petitioners that they had informed the respondents vide letter dated 16.04.2026 (page 92 of the paper book) about having preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act against the order dated 28.10.2025 before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra alongwith an application for staying the implementation of the impugned order i.e. dated 28.10.2025. 1(iii). On 20.04.2026, the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, admitted the appeal preferred by the petitioners by condoning the delay in its institution. The impugned order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Nurpur was stayed till further orders. The case was next scheduled for 05.05.2026. It has been apprised by learned counsel for the parties that respondent No.1 has appeared before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra in the aforesaid appeal. 3 ( 2026:HHC:20022 ) The matter is being processed further by the concerned Court. 1(iv). Petitioners grievance is that despite the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Collector, Nurpur having been stayed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra on 20.04.2026, respondent No.1 got the same forcibily executed on 20.04.2026; That petitioners’ representation dated 22.04.2026 to the Assistant Collector, Temple as also dated 27.04.2026 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Indora complaining about execution of the order that had been stayed by the higher Court was not responded. It is in the above background that petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to hand over and unseal the premises in question by implementing ad-interim order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. 2. Learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.1 submits that order dated 20.04.2026 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, staying the eviction order dated 28.10.2025 was not to the knowledge of respondents; That the respondents had executed the order dated 28.10.2025 on 20.04.2026. 4 ( 2026:HHC:20022 ) 3. The documents on record lead to an inference of petitioners having brought to the notice of respondents No. 1 & 2 on 16.04.2026 about having filed an appeal against the eviction order dated 28.10.2025. Be that as it may, even if respondent No.1 had sealed the premises in question on 20.04.2026 by executing eviction order dated 28.10.2025 still, after having come to know in terms of petitioners representations enclosed at Annexure P-9 dated 22.04.2026 and 27.04.2026 addressed to respondents No.1 & 2 about impugned eviction order having been stayed by the Divisional Commissioner on 20.04.2026, it was expected from the respondents to unseal the premises themselves and to hand over the possession of the same to the petitioners as the stay order dated 20.04.2026 passed by Divisional Commissioner was unqualified and unconditional. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 fairly submitted that respondents shall maintain status- quo ante 20.04.2026 in view of interim order dated 20.04.2026 passed by Divisional Commissioner, will unseal the premises and hand over the possession of premises to the petitioners in compliance of order dated 20.04.2026, during the course of the day today. 5. The above assurance given by learned counsel is duly noted. Let needful be done by the respondents 5 ( 2026:HHC:20022 ) during course of the day today. Needless to clarify that observations made in the order shall remain confined to the adjudication of limited grievance of the petitioners raised in this writ petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on merits of the matter. The Competent Authority shall proceed with the appeal uninfluenced by any of the observations made above. All rights and contention of the parties in that regard are left open. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 26, 2026 Judge yogesh