IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Ex. Petition No.295 of 2026 Decided on 09th July 2026 Sh. Kirpa Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. M.C. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Vishal Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) The petitioner is seeking the execution of the order passed by this Court in CWP No.5320 of 2024, titled Kirpa Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 05.05.2025. In terms of this order, the petition was disposed of by passing the following directions:- 2 “Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General have referred to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4 and stated that as it is the stand of the respondents that the case is pending at the end of the Revenue Department for the demarcation of the land and post demarcation appropriate steps shall be taken by the police in the matter in accordance with law, ends of justice would be served, in case, this Court disposes of this petition with the direction to the Revenue Authority to carry out the necessary direction within some reasonable time. In view of the fact that Deputy Commissioner Mandi, H.P., is a party respondent in the writ petition, without making any observation of the merits of this case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent No.2 to ensure that demarcation of the land is carried out forthwith in accordance with law by due intimation to all the stakeholders and thereafter the investigation in the FIR be taken to its logical conclusion within a period of eight weeks as from the date of the demarcation. Demarcation be carried out within a period of four weeks from today.” 2. Reply filed to the execution petition demonstrates that during the pendency of the writ petition itself, the land stood demarcated on 05.02.2025, however, the petitioner had not accepted the same. 3. The order passed by Assistant Collector, II Grade, Sub-Tehsil Bagshar, District Mandi, dated 18.03.2025, on the application filed by the Station House Officer, Karsog for the demarcation of the land has also been appended with the petition. 3 4. This all demonstrates that when the writ petition was disposed of by this Court, the petitioner did not disclose the factum of the land having been demarcated earlier during the pendency of the petition and order on the application of the SHO having filed by the revenue authority. 5. In the backdrop of this fact, as obviously, now noting is required to be done, as the prayer for demarcation of the land, as was made in the original writ petition stood met by the demarcation of the land having been carried out by the revenue authority, no further order is required to be passed in the present execution petition. 6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 09, 2026 (Vinod)