IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10522 of 2026 Decided on: 01.07.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ketan Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others . .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 to consider and decide the complaints dated 27.01.2026 and 29.01.2026 (Annexures P- 2&P-3) bypassing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a time-bound period; 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 b) Direct the said authorities to consider all issues raised, including non-utilization of land under Section 118, illegal subdivision and registrations &absence of mandatory NOC to Sell ” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has preferred several representations to the concerned revenue authorities, highlighting his grievances in relation to sale and purchase of the land by respondent No.5 vis-à-vis provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, more particularly Section 118 thereof, however, till date the aforesaid representations have not been considered by the Competent Authority in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondents No. 2 to 4/ competent authority is directed to decide the representations of the petitioner Annexures P-2, P-3 and P- 5 (colly), within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents No. 2 to 4/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner in accordance with law, 3 within a period of eight weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 1, 2026 Judge R.Atal