IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10132/2026 Decided on: 25.06.2026 Dipesh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok K. Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. At the oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Vinesh, S/o Sh. Lakshmi Singh, R/o Village Khangta, P.O. Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, is impleaded as respondent No.22. Registry to carry out the necessary corrections in the cause title. 2. Notice confined to respondents No.1 and 2, which is waived by the learned Additional Advocate General. In view of the grievance of the petitioner and the order being passed hereinafter, notice of this petition is not required to be issued to respondents No.3 to 22. Reply is also not required to be called for from the appearing respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No.2, Assistant Collector Second Grade, Rohru, District Shimla, to complete the partition proceedings initiated under Section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (the Act, in short), in a time-bound manner. The case set up by the petitioner is that: - Partition proceedings were initiated at the instance of the petitioner and respondent No.22 under Section 123 of the Act for partition of the land held jointly by them with the private respondents; The mode of partition was finalized on 25.03.2022. Respondent No.3 assailed the mode of partition by way of an appeal, which was dismissed by the Collector, Sub Division Rohru, on 19.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no further challenge was laid by any of the co-owners to the aforesaid order in appeal. The order dated 19.02.2025 has attained finality. Despite this, the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Rohru, has not proceeded with the partition proceedings. The proceedings have not reached its logical conclusion. Delay in culmination of the proceedings is causing prejudice to the parties, hence, prayer has been made for directing the competent authority to decide the partition case in a time- bound manner. 4. Keeping in view the limited grievance of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to decide the partition proceedings in the partition case 3 referred to in this petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from today. A copy of this order be communicated by the office of the learned Advocate General to respondent No.2. With the above directions, the present petition to stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 25th June, 2026 (rohit)