( 2026:HHC:26092 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10773/2026 Decided on: 02.07.2026 Manju @Mami …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. .....Respondent ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the grievance of the petitioner, documents placed on record including the impugned orders and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for the reply from the appearing respondent. The matter has been heard & considered accordingly. 2. Proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (the Act, in short), were initiated against the petitioner on 09.12.2025. The Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Sadar, District 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:26092 ) Mandi, H.P., vide order dated 03.02.2026, directed eviction of the petitioner from Khasra No. 1429/1 measuring 15.00 square metres, classified as 'Gair Mumkin Hayata', situated at Mohal Sain, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. The petitioner was held to be in unauthorized occupation of the aforesaid premises. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal on 17.03.2026 under Section 14 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Sadar, District Mandi. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 19.05.2026 with the only reasoning assigned as under: - “5. After careful perusal of the facts and listening to the arguments from both side. I, am of the opinion that the order passed by the lower court is valid, justified and hence upheld. The lower court is directed to follow the necessary due procedure in removal of encroachments within stipulated time period. The Original file is returned back to lower court. The file be kept in the GRR after due completion.” The petitioner next took recourse to Section 17 of the Act by instituting a revision petition on 09.06.2026 before the Divisional Commissioner against the order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the Sub- Divisional Collector. The Divisional Commissioner granted stay in favour of the petitioner on 22.05.2026, and the next date of the case was scheduled for 05.08.2026. Evidently, on a request being made by the respondent, the case was preponed to 23.06.2026, when the stay granted on 22.05.2026 was vacated by the following order: - “Present for the Petitioner : Advocate Hem Raj. 3 ( 2026:HHC:26092 ) Present for the Respondent: Advocate Sh. BS Bharmoria. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Sh. BS Bharmoria waives notice on behalf of State. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner prays for further extension of the Stay on the grounds/arguments put forth by him yesterday. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent State is allowed to argue his case. He argued that the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Collector Mandi and Tehsildar Mandi are detailed and speaking in nature. Further, he argued that there are criminal cases of NDPS Act, 1985 pending adjudication in the Civil Courts against the Petitioner and thus vehemently opposed the extension of the stay valid till today and prayed for immediate vacation of the present stay. Having heard the arguments of the Respondent State the undersigned is of the considered opinion that further extension of stay is not warranted in the present case. Hence, the stay granted yesterday is vacated. Requisition the record of the case. List this case for Arguments on 3.7.2026 at Mandi.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no application had been moved for vacation of the interim order. In terms of the above order, the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi, who on 22.05.2026 had stayed the operation of the order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Mandi, and had fixed the next date of hearing in the month of August, 2026, vacated the stay order on 23.06.2026 on the grounds that: (i) The impugned orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Mandi, and the Tehsildar, Mandi, were detailed and speaking in nature; and (ii) Criminal cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act, for short) were pending adjudication against the petitioner. 4 ( 2026:HHC:26092 ) Irrespective of any case under the NDPS Act having been registered against the petitioner, this stand alone fact could have no bearing on consideration/adjudication of petitioner’s application for grant of interim relief against order passed under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The said application was required to be considered on its own merits, without being influenced by the pendency or otherwise of any criminal case against the petitioner. Further, the mere submission on behalf of the respondents that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Mandi, and the Tehsildar, Mandi, were detailed and speaking in nature was not a valid ground to vacate the interim order. The reasoning assigned in the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector has already been extracted at page-2 of this order. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, was required to independently examine the impugned orders to determine whether they were speaking or non-speaking. Evidently, this exercise has not been carried out by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The interim order has been vacated for reasons that have no relevance and without even examining the cited reasons. It would also be in place to notice that in Bishwa Nath Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and another2 directions have been issued to the respondent-State to formulate in collaboration with the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Academy, a comprehensive training program at H.P. 2 CWP No. 5559/2026 decided on 20.04.2026 5 ( 2026:HHC:26092 ) Judicial Academy, Shimla, with focus to equip the concerned Officers/Quasi-Judicial Authorities with better knowledge of law governing their fields. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.06.2026 passed by Divisional Commissioner Mandi is set aside. The concerned authority shall consider the revision petition preferred by the petitioner along with application for the grant of interim relief, in accordance with law. This order be brought to the notice of the Divisional Commissioner Mandi as also the Chief Secretary to the State of Himachal Pradesh through the office of learned Advocate General. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 2nd July, 2026 (rohit)