1 2026:HHC:27539 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11094 of 2026 Decided on: 08.07.2026 Sapna Devi and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No. 1 to 5, which is waived by learned Additional Advocate General. 2. In view of restrictive grievance raised during hearing of the case, pleadings in that regard, restrictive submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, nature of grievance of the petitioner, the documents on record and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondents No. 6 to 15 and 16 to 19. Reply is also not required to be called from the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:27539 appearing respondents. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 3. Petitioners are married daughters and Class-I legal heirs of late Sh. Hans Raj. The essence of their grievance in this writ petition is to mutation No.809 dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-11) and subsequent derivative mutation Nos. 818, 819 and 827 (part of Annexure P-9 colly). Petitioners seek declaration of aforesaid mutation as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and vitiated by fraud. According to the petitioners, respondent No.17-Shri Munish Kumar s/o late Shri Hans Raj suffers 25% permanent mental retardation (intellectual disability). His disability certificate dated 13.01.2025 has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. Petitioners submit that their brother Shri Munish Kumar-respondent No.7 is patently and demonstrably incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of any legal proceedings, of instructing any counsel, or of executing any valid legal instrument including a power of attorney or a compromise deed. That exploiting the vulnerability of mentally disabled respondent No.17, respondent No.7- Shri Rajeev Nag acted in active collusion and conspiracy with other private respondents and consequently, brought into existence a fabricated & forged General Power of 3 2026:HHC:27539 Attorney executed in favour of one Shri Prem Singh. On the basis of aforesaid General Power of Attorney, sham, collusive and fraudulent compromise deed/affidavit was prepared. It is further case of the petitioners that aforesaid sham documents were presented by the respondents before the Revenue Authorities, where the dispute between the parties with respect to conferment of proprietary rights over the subject land was going on. The compromise deed, however, was not accepted by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) as the basis for deciding the Revision Petition (Rajeev Nag versus Munish Kumar & others) preferred by the respondent No.7. The Revision Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.10.2024 as under:- “15.10.2024 Present: Ms. Vandna Thakur viceSh.Surinder Saklani, Counsel alongwith petitioner. Sh. Prem Singh, GPA holder for Sh. Munish Kumar, alongwith Sh. Devender K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1. On the request of Ld. Vice Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, who filed power of attorney for the respondent No.1 through Sh. Prem Singh, GPA holder, the matter is presented before me, today. The ld. Vice counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1 stated at bar that the parties have settled the matter amicably and the petitioner does not intend to peruse the revision petition. The Ld. Counsel urged that the 4 2026:HHC:27539 present revision petition may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties. From perusal of the compromise deed, it is clear that the same has been arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, whereas from perusal of memo of parties of the revision petition shows that there are other respondents in the matter and as such the agreement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 cannot be enforced upon other respondents. Thus, the matter cannot be decided in terms of the said agreement. However, the same is allowed to be withdrawn. Therefore, the present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. This file be consigned to the record room after due completion.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention to mutation No.809 attested by learned A.C.1st Grade, Palampur, District Kangra (respondent No.5) on 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-14 colly). The aforesaid mutation had purportedly been attested on the basis of order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 15.10.2024. Learned counsel submits that aforesaid order (extracted above) had not directed attestation of mutation on the basis of compromise rather the Revision Petition preferred by respondent No.7, was dismissed as withdrawn as the compromise was not accepted; On the basis of mutation No.809, further mutations have also been attested viz. Nos. 818, 819 and 827 (part of Annexure P-9; colly) whereby the private respondents have further 5 2026:HHC:27539 transferred/alienated/sold parts of subject land. It appears that petitioners preferred representation to the Competent Authorities for correcting the error in Mutation No.809 attested on 28.10.2024. Taking note of petitioners’ representation, the Tehsildar, Palampur, District Kangra- respondent No.5 in turn had addressed detailed communication dated 25.07.2025 to the Collector, Sub-Division, Palampur seeking his approval for initiating proceedings for review of mutation No.809 dated 28.10.2024 in accordance with applicable revenue law and procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one additional reason for seeking review of mutation No. 809, was that judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No.69-P/XIII/99 decided by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. on 10.01.2000, as upheld on 21.07.2011 in R.S.A. No.216/2000 (Punni Devi and others versus Hans Raj and others) affirming the tenancy rights of late Shri Hans Raj over the subject matter, had not been brought to the notice of Revenue Authorities during sanctioning of Mutation No. 809. 4. Looking to the fact that respondent No.5 has already addressed detailed communication dated 25.07.2025 to the Collector, Sub-Division, Palampur- respondent No.4 seeking review of Mutation No.809 dated 6 2026:HHC:27539 28.10.2024, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents No. 2-4/ Competent Authority to take appropriate call on the aforesaid request of respondent No.5 made on 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-14; colly) in accordance with law keeping in view the facts of the case, as also the revenue documents, orders, proceedings, judgment etc. passed in the matter. This exercise be carried out by respondents No. 2-4 within two week & order so passed be communicated to respondent No.5. By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that this order has been passed only for redressing limited grievance urged in the writ petition. The case has not been examined on the merits of the matter. All rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 08, 2026 Judge yogesh