1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12949 of 2026 Decided on: 30.07.2026 Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued and the wrong entry incorporated illegally by the respondents in the land comprised in Khasra No.260/219 & 261/219, Mauza Nangal Saketi, Pargana Khol, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. may kindly be deleted and the respondents be restrained from interfering in the land detailed above. ii) That the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Revenue Appeal No.92/2023, Annexure P-7, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.” In view of the pleadings, documents appended with the writ petition, the limited grievance urged, order impugned herein and the nature of order being passed 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. It is not in dispute that regarding substantive relief No.(i) prayed in this writ petition, petitioner had previously instituted Civil Writ Petition No.4671 of 2022. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.08.2022 as under:- “After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition, with liberty to file proceedings, as may be permissible in law. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty as prayed. The pending application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.” Pursuant to above, the petitioner instituted proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla- respondent No.2. Zimni orders in the aforesaid proceedings Revenue Appeal/Revision No.92/2023 have been appended at Annexure P-9 (colly). The same reflect that on 10.06.2024, arguments of the parties were heard by respondent No.2 and the case was scheduled to come up for order on 11.07.2024. The order dated 10.06.2024 reads as under:- “10.06.2024:- Case called. Present: For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chauhan, vice Amit Chauhan, ld. Counsel. 3 For respondent/State: Sh. Yash Pal Singh, Ld. DA Ld. Counsel for appellant file the written arguments on behalf of appellant, which is placed on record. Argument both the parties were heard. Now, the case to come up for order on 11-07-2024. Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Division, Shimla.” On 11.7.2024, the case was ordered to be taken up for ‘effective hearing’ on 29.07.2024. The order passed on 11.07.2024 reads as under:- “11-07-2024. This case has been listed today, but Divisional Commissioner Shimla is busy in other administrative exigency and as per his direction and will be taken up for effective hearing on 29-07- 2024, at Judicial Court Complex, Chakkar, Shimla-5. A notice to this effect stands already displayed on the notice board of Court room for information of parties concerned. Naib-Tehsildar (Peshi)” On 29.07.2024, none was present for the appellant. The order so passed is as under:- “29-07-2024. Case called. Present: For Appellant: None For Respondent/ State: Sh. Yash Pal Singh, Ld. DA. Order could not announce today, will be announced on next date of hearing. Now, the case to come up for order on 12-08-2024. Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla” On 12.08.2024, there was no appearance for the appellant and following order was passed:- “12-08-2024. Case Called. 4 Present: For Appellant: None For Respondent/State: Sh. Yash Pal Singh, Ld. DA Order could not announce today, will be announced on next date hearing. Now, the case to come up for order on 29-08-2024. Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla.” On 29.08.2024, in absence of the appellant, respondent No.2 passed the order as under:- “29-08-2024 Case Called. Present:- For Appellant: None For Respondents/State: Sh. Yash Pal, Ld. DA I have gone through the contents of appeal and other documents attached with the appeal. The presnet appeal has been filed u/s 20 of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 and there is no order against which the present appeal has been filed placed on record by the appellant whereas copy of notice u/s 12 of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 has been entered annexure P-3. This notice has been made bases for the present appeal. This notice was issued to Shri Ram Chander predecessor of present appellant in year 1975 with the direction to deliver the possession of land declared surplus with in ten days and the said land stand vested with the State Govt. as is evident from the entry in revenue record placed with this appeal. As per direction section 20 of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 any person aggrieved by the decision or order may from the date within sixty days from the date of decision as per order prepared and appeal to the Commissioner. Therefore, it is crystal clear that and appeal lies against the decision or Order of the Collector which is not on record. Hence the present appeal is not maintainable in the present form and accordingly this same is dismissed. Miscellaneous , if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Record of the lower court be sent back alongwith a copy of this 5 order and record of this court be consigned to record room after due completion. Announced in the open Court today 29th Day of August, 2024. Announced. Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla-2.” Petitioner has grievance to the order dated 29.08.2024. 3. Heard & considered the case file. On 11.07.2024, respondent No.2 had ordered for taking up the matter for ‘effective hearing’ on 29.07.2024. This being the position, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2- Authority to have heard the petitioner, as ‘effective hearing’ would only mean hearing of the matter afresh but instead of hearing the matter, it appears that subsequent orders were passed by respondent No.2 only in furtherance of announcement of the decision. Such approach cannot be countenanced. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not attend further hearing as he was given the impression that no further hearing was to be conducted. Be that as it may, in view of quasi judicial order passed on 11.07.2024 for placing the matter for further hearing, the respondent No.2 ought to have heard the matter afresh in presence of both the parties. 6 In view of above, the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 that suffers from breach of principles of natural justice, is set-aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to hear the matter afresh in accordance with law. Parties through their learned counsel to remain present before respondent No.2 on 18.08.2026. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 30, 2026 Judge yogesh