IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8369 of 2026 Decided on: 25.05.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Krishna Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Nemo for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief: - “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to decide the complaint of the petitioner annexed herewith as Annexure P-2 and action may kindly be taken against the respondent No.3” 2. Petitioner alleges that respondent No.4 has raised 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - a Dhara in front of petitioner’s gate, and thereby blocked petitioners’ path illegally and unauthorizedly; That petitioner has now no road to approach her house constructed over the land bearing Khasra No. 595/569/61 situated in village Jubbar, Patwar Circle Ghaini, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla; That petitioner’s complaint to the authorities regarding illegal construction raised by respondent No.4 in the year 2024, has not been appropriately inquired into by the respondents. No action has been taken by the respondents regarding the encroachment made by respondent No.4. 3. Petitioner has invoked extra ordinary remedy for redressal of her grievance, however, the writ petition neither describes the particulars of subject land, nor identifies the land, which has been allegedly encroached by respondent No.4. Even the ownership of the land alleged to have been encroached upon by respondent No.4 is not decipherable from the writ petition. To a query of the Court to the learned counsel, as to whether the land allegedly encroached by respondent No.4 belongs to respondent No.4 or the petitioner or is in the ownership of the State Government, the answer was that respondent No.4 by way of encroaching - 3 - certain land has blocked the approach to the petitioner’s house and, therefore, petitioner seeks directions to the official respondents to decide her representation against the action of respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner insists for deciding this petition. This writ petition, in view of vague particulars, giving no description about identity and ownership of land allegedly encroached by respondent No.4 and on the fence pleadings, cannot be carried further in its present form. Accordingly, the same is dismissed at this stage. Liberty, however, is reserved to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition in accordance with law with proper particulars and pleadings. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 25, 2026 R.Atal