1 2026:HHC:23235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9846/2026 Decided on:19.06.2026 Rajesh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dev Raj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India for “quashing and setting- aside proceedings in Execution Petition No.31-X/2014 as inexecutable in view of findings rendered by Deputy Commissioner, Kullu under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972”. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and considered the case file. 3. From the case file, it appears that a Civil Suit bearing No. 67/12/1996(203/1996) was filed against the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:23235 petitioner by the private respondents for possession, permanent prohibitory injunction and mesne profits. The Civil Suit was decreed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul and Spiti, at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. on 04.07.2012. The appeal preferred by the petitioner (defendant in the civil suit) against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed except for the mesne profits. The Private respondents- plaintiffs preferred execution petition seeking enforcement of judgment and decree. The petitioner moved an application therein for staying the execution petition on the grounds that the suit land was not identifiable and that decree holder being non-Himachali could not have purchased any agricultural land in the State of Himachal Pradesh in violation of provisions of Section 118 of the Act. Petitioner’s application was dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 22.06.2016. Petitioner assailed this order in CMPMO No.299/2016. The said petition was also dismissed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 14.03.2019 affirming the view taken by the learned Executing Court that suit land, possession whereof was sought, stood clearly described/ depicted in 3 2026:HHC:23235 the judgment. The suit land was clearly identifiable. With regard to second ground taken by the petitioner, it was observed that the issue had already been urged by the petitioner in his appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Same had been decided against the petitioner; That petitioner being Judgment Debtor cannot rake up this issue time and again. Relevant paras of the decision are as under:- “2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the learned Executing Court has erroneously dismissed the application filed by petitioners without appreciating that as the judgment and decree was not clear where the suit land was situated and which portion was to be handed over to the applicants, therefore, the same is not executable. He has further argued that the learned Executing Court has not taken into consideration the fact that respondent/decree holder being non-Himachali could otherwise not have had purchased any agricultural land in the State of Himachal Pradesh in violation of the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 4. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that both these points which have been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners were not only considered but also answered by learned Executing Court. In para 7 thereof, learned Executing Court has held that perusal of the judgment and decree reveals that decree of possession was for land measuring 18 biswas as reflected in demarcation report Ext. PW3/A and Tatima Ext. PW3/F denoted by Khasra No. 3654/1 situated at Phati Sosan Kothi Kanawar Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Learned Executing Court has 4 2026:HHC:23235 held that the suit land, possession whereof is sought, therefore, stands clearly described/depicted in the judgment and that being so it could not be said that the suit land was not identifiable. With regard to the second submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the same has also been answered by learned Executing Court by holding that this issue was urged by present petitioners before the learned appellate Court and it stood decided against the petitioners by learned appellate Court and judgment debtors could not rake up this issue again and again. 5. In order to satisfy as to whether these findings are borne out from the record, this Court with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties went through the record of the case. A perusal of the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs and to the extent upheld by learned appellate Court demonstrates that decree for possession granted in favour of decree holder was for land measuring 18 biswas as shown in demarcation report Ext. PW3/A and Tatima Ext. PW3/F denoted by Khasra No. 3654/1 situated at Phati Sosan Kothi Kanawar Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. This clearly proves that there is no ambiguity with regard to description of land for which decree has been passed in favour of decree holder. The land is clearly described and depicted in the decree and therefore, it cannot be said that the decree is unexecutable. As far as the objection of the decree being unexecutable on the ground that the decree holder could not purchase agricultural land as they were non-agriculturists is concerned, it has been held by learned Courts below that no evidence has been produced by defendants/judgment debtors and the bald statements of the defendants were not sufficient to prove the aforesaid allegations. Even today, learned counsel for the petitioners could not bring to the notice of this Court any evidence which was led before the learned Courts below by the petitioners to substantiate the said allegation. 5 2026:HHC:23235 That being so, in my considered view, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is perverse and not sustainable in law, as the findings returned in the impugned order are duly borne out from the record of the case and otherwise also learned Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Thus as there is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error with the impugned order, the present petition is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit.” 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that decree cannot be executed against the petitioner as in separate proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the District Collector, Kullu vide his order dated 22.09.2022 has ordered vesting of the land in question in State of H.P. Therefore, the decree having been rendered inexecutable, the execution proceedings are liable to be ‘quashed & set-aside’. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner candidly admitted that for the same relief as prayed in the instant writ petition, the petitioner had instituted CMPMO No.478/2025 which was withdrawn by him on 18.08.2025. The order permitting the petitioner to withdraw the petition without reserving any liberty to file fresh proceedings, reads as under:- 6 2026:HHC:23235 “After making his submissions for some time, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.” Learned Senior Counsel also has apprised that order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 22.09.2022 vesting the land in the State government, even otherwise has been stayed by the Divisional Commissioner in an appeal preferred by the respondent No.4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however, has insisted for deciding this writ petition on its own merits. Given the background of litigation between petitioner and private respondents, wherein judgment and decree dated 04.07.2012 has attained finality, as also the decision rendered in CMPMO No.299/2016 and the order passed in CMPMO No.478/2025, it is incomprehensible as to how the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court. The sole answer provided by learned Senior Counsel is that the writ jurisdiction has been invoked as State has now stepped into picture in view of order passed by Deputy Collector, Kullu on 22.09.2022 ordering for vestment of land in the State. 7 2026:HHC:23235 Suffice to note that CMPMO No.478/2025 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 18.08.2025 i.e. after the aforesaid decision of District Collector, Kullu. Further, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner stands stayed by the Higher Court. In any case, even if petitioner has some grievance with regard to inexecutability of the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2012, the same cannot be gone into in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The proceedings in the execution petition, going on in Competent Jurisdictional Civil Court, pursuant to a final judgment & decree, cannot be “quashed & set-aside” in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, as prayed for the petitioner. It appears that petitioner is trying to abuse the process of Court by instituting multiple litigations time and again invoking different provisions. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of ₹20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in "Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund, 2025” within two weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 19, 2026 Judge yogesh