IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10943 of 2026 Decided on: 07.07.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others . .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shubham Kashyap, Advocate, (through V.C.) For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms.Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is with the case that land measuring 4-13 bighas, comprised in Khasra No. 97/90/2, situated at Village Jungal Sungal, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. was sanctioned in his favour as nautor in file No.109/81 on 26.10.1982 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Petitioner deposited Nazrana of Rs.930/- vide receipt No. 28/12/85 in Missal No. 109/81 with the Revenue Accountant Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur. Petitioner also asserts that possession of the aforesaid land was handed over to him. He is in possession of the land in question ever-since and has also developed the same. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to attest mutation of the aforesaid land in his favour as despite the above, the land is still being reflected in the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has already represented to the Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur on 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondents No. 2 / competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a fixed time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No. 2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid 3 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of six 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 7, 2026 Judge R.Atal