IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11620 of 2026 Decided on: 06.08.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajeev Kumar and Anr. …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate (through VC) and Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A. A writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, calling for the entire records of the case, and after evaluating the same, quash and set aside the Impugned Order/Letter No. 2894/ADM/Public Grievance Cell/2025 dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P- 8) passed by Respondent No. 3. B. A writ of mandamus, directing Respondent No. 6 to immediately entertain, process, and register all 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 valid sale deeds presented by the Petitioners regarding Khasra Nos. 3180 and 3188 situated at Up-Mohal Pandoga Upperla, District Una, without demanding fictional Town and Country Planning NOCs or adhering to the illegal extra-statutory blocks. C. Direct the Respondents to pay exemplary costs to the Petitioners for the severe financial and mental agony caused due to the arbitrary, malicious, and unconstitutional freezing of their agricultural property rights.” 2. Annexure P-8 is an office communication addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.6 with direction not to entertain any sale deed comprising certain khasra numbers of Mohalla Pandoga Upperla in District Una, H.P. Petitioners have grievance to the aforesaid directions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have preferred a representation to respondent No.2 on 11.12.2025 (Annexure P-9); Petitioners would be content in case respondent No. 2/Competent Authority is directed to consider the aforesaid representation and pass appropriate orders thereupon, in accordance with. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3 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 representation of the petitioners 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 August 6, 2026 Judge R.Atal