2026:HHC:32512 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13070 of 2025 Decided on: 5th August, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Om Parkash …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Tanu and Ms. Muskan, Advocates vice Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate, for respondents No.5 and 6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is stated to be suffering from Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). He has preferred this writ petition through his brother-Sh. Inder Singh seeking following substantive reliefs:- 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 2026:HHC:32512 “(i) That the impugned illegal action of the respondent department for demolishing the house of the petitioner without conducting any demarcation and may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the appropriate writ may kindly be issued, directing the respondent to hear the petitioner before taking any action against the petitioner. (iii) That the appropriate writ may kindly be issued, directing the respondent to conduct the demarcation on the spot as per government instruction. (iv) That the respondent may kindly be restrained from taking any action against the petitioner on the basis of order passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.P. No.6986 of 2025, titled as Roop Singh & another Versus State of H.P.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 2(i). Sh. Roop Singh & another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others2 was instituted by respondents No.5 and 6 with the allegation that respondent No.4 therein, i.e. Sh. Govind Ram S/o Sh. Dasu (present respondent No.4) had encroached upon the government land; The said encroachment should be ordered to be removed. Respondent No.4 denied having encroached upon any government land. He projected that it was his brother (present petitioner), who had encroached upon the government land. Therefore, respondent No.4 expressed his no objection for removal of the encroachment by way of demolition of the structure. In light of this submission, the 2 CWP No.6986 of 2025, decided on 11.07.2025 3 2026:HHC:32512 writ petition was disposed of on 11.07.2025 with direction to the authorities concerned to remove the encroachment that was attributed to respondent No.4 therein within 72 hours. The judgment is as under:- “Respondent No.4 stands served. Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General has handed over copy of Instructions, received from Tehsildar Balh, District Mandi, H.P., which are taken on record and on the strength of said Instructions, he apprises the Court that the respondent No.4 indeed has encroached upon the Government land. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioners have also encroached upon the Government land. He further submits that as far as private respondent is concerned he has not encroached upon any Government land and it is his brother who has encroached upon the same and he has no objection in case the said encroachment is demolished. 4. In the light of this fact, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that as far as the encroachment that is attributed to the private respondent is concerned, the Authorities concerned shall remove the same definitely within 72 hours from today. If the private respondent creates any hindrance in the removal of that encroachment, then it shall be deemed to be contempt of the directions passed by the Court. Simultaneously, if it found that the petitioners have encroached upon any Government land, then proceedings be initiated against the petitioners in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 2(ii). Present petitioner instituted Om Parkash through Inder Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh 4 2026:HHC:32512 & others3 alongwith CMP No.18064 of 2025, seeking leave to appeal on the ground that he was not a party in Roop Singh and another2, but prejudicial observations had been made against him; He had no opportunity to present his case in Roop Singh and another2; An oral partition inter se three sons, namely Govind Ram (present respondent No.4 as also respondent No.4 in Roop Singh and another2), Inder Singh and Om Prakash (present petitioner), had been carried out, consequent to which, constructions were raised over the subject land. Upon hearing the petitioner, Hon’ble Division Bench held that interest of the petitioner would be protected if an opportunity was granted to him to move an appropriate application in Roop Singh and another2 for bringing all the facts on record, as apparently the onus had been put upon the petitioner/appellant-Om Parkash by his brother-Govind Ram without the petitioner having been impleaded in the writ petition, therefore, the directions issued in Roop Singh and another2 might have adverse effect upon his rights. The observations relevant to the context are as under:- “6. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the present applicant/ appellant would be protected if an opportunity is granted to him to file an appropriate application before 3 LPA No.492 of 2025, decided on 29.07.2025 5 2026:HHC:32512 the learned Single Judge bringing all the facts on record. Apparently the onus has been put upon the present appellant by his brother Govind Ram and therefore, the directions might have adverse effect as such, on his rights. 7. Resultantly, we deem it proper to dispose of the present appeal with liberty to applicant/appellant to approach the learned Single Judge by filing the appropriate application as it is also noticed that since apparently, pleadings were not completed before the learned Single Judge and no reply has been filed by the private respondents also. 8. In view of above, the present appeal is disposed of with the above liberty along with application for leave to appeal. Needless to say that we are not commenting on the merits of the case and the applicant/appellant is at liberty to challenge the order, which will be passed in the application to be filed before the learned Single Judge, within ten days from today. 9. In the meantime, the State will hold its hands regarding the directions issued and it is open to the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the interim relief, if any, to be granted, if he deems fit in the application.” 2(iii). Pursuant to above, petitioner moved Review Petition No.63 of 2025 seeking review of Roop Singh and another2. The review petition was dismissed on 11.08.2025, however, with the clarification that dismissal of the review petition would not be construed as an embargo, in case, the petitioner intends to approach this Court to challenge the action initiated by the authorities in accordance with law. The observations made therein are as under:- “3. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed, however, it is clarified that dismissal of this review petition shall not be construed as an embargo, in case, the petitioner intends to approach this Court to challenge the action initiated by the authorities, in accordance with law. 6 2026:HHC:32512 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.” It is pursuant to the liberty given to the petitioner that he has instituted the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 submitted that the land in question is in possession of respondent No.4. Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed reply, conveying that ejectment order has been passed against respondent No.4-Sh. Govind Ram under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (in short ‘the Act’); That the petitioner does not have possession over the disputed land (encroached land). Alongwith the office instructions dated 04.08.2026 placed on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General, the order passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi on 05.07.2025 under Section 163 of the Act has been enclosed. The said order was passed against Sh. Govind Ram (present respondent No.4). The compendium of instructions placed on record also reveals that respondent No.4 had agitated the aforesaid order by preferring an appeal under Section 14 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Balh, District Mandi, pleading 7 2026:HHC:32512 therein that he had not encroached upon the government land; That during lifetime of his father, i.e. Sh. Dasu Ram, the property had been partitioned between his three sons, i.e. Govind Ram, Inder Singh and Om Prakash; A room adjacent to government land constructed in the year 1990 had come in the share of Om Prakash (present petitioner), who is suffering from Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD); Present petitioner being mentally retarded is looked after by his elder brother-Sh. Inder Singh; The impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi under Section 163 of the Act had been passed not only behind the back of Sh. Govind Ram, but also behind the back of Sh. Om Prakash, who is the real affected party. The appeal preferred by Sh. Govind Ram has been dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Balh, District Mandi on 20.09.2025. 4. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised that Sh. Govind Ram has now further assailed the orders dated 05.07.2025 passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi and dated 20.09.2025 passed by the Collector, Sub- Division, Balh, District Mandi by filing a revision petition 8 2026:HHC:32512 before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The said revision is stated to be pending. 5. Considering the stand of respondent No.4, which throughout has been that the alleged encroachment was not made by him, but by his brother, i.e. by present petitioner, that for this reason, respondent No.4 did not even object to the removal of alleged encroachment and considering the fact that in the letters patent appeal preferred by the petitioner, there is already an observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench that rights of the present petitioner might be affected without him having been given an opportunity to defend his case, in the given facts & circumstances of the case, keeping in view the interest of justice, equity & fair play, it is deemed appropriate to exercise discretion by setting aside the orders dated 05.07.2025 passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi and dated 20.09.2025 passed by the Collector, Sub-Division, Balh, District Mandi with direction to the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi to also implead the present petitioner in the ejectment proceedings and thereafter to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law, after 9 2026:HHC:32512 giving opportunity to the present petitioner as well to object to the proceedings/defend himself. Ordered accordingly. The Assistant Collector Second Grade, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi shall not allow any unnecessary adjournment to the parties and shall ensure expeditious disposal of the proceedings, preferably within two months. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to remain present before the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Balh, District Mandi on 17.08.2026. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 05, 2026 Judge Mukesh