IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8641 of 2026 Decided on: 27th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Netter Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the grievance raised in this petition, the urgency pointed out and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. Respondent-State initiated proceedings against the petitioner under H.P. Public Premises and Land 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (in short ‘the Act’) on 11.02.2026. Eviction order was passed by the Collector- cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Renukaji, District Sirmour on 23.04.2026. Petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the aforesaid order invoking Section 9 of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division. The appeal is stated to have been filed on 21.05.2026 through online mode and by physical mode on 22.05.2026. The appeal was statedly put up for hearing on 25.05.2026, but due to casual absence of the Presiding Officer (respondent No.2), petitioner’s appeal could not be taken up on that day. 28.05.2026 was assigned as the next date of hearing of the appeal. The said date has now been declared as State holiday. Petitioner now complains that his matter will not be heard even on 28.05.2026, whereas, the respondents are now threatening to take immediate coercive action against him on the basis of eviction order dated 23.04.2026. Petitioner seeks protection in the above factual scenario till the time his appeal is taken up for admission/ hearing by respondent No.2. 3. Since the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal before respondent No.2 against the eviction order dated 23.04.2026 passed by respondent No.3 and his 3 appeal is yet to be listed, keeping in view petitioner’s threat perception of respondents proceeding ahead by executing the order dated 23.04.2026 before the listing of his appeal, it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of this writ petition with direction to the respondents that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner on the basis of order dated 23.04.2026 passed by respondent No.3 till the time his appeal preferred against the said order is taken up for admission by respondent No.2. Ordered accordingly. 4. It is clarified that the above order has been passed in the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter. The authority concerned shall consider and decide petitioner’s appeal in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made hereto above. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 27, 2026 Judge Mukesh