IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16139 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Chanika Devi …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that despite there being repeated requests and directions issued by competent authority, no steps are being taken for mutation of the land comprised in new Khasra No. 560/222 (Old Khasra No.171/173), measuring 10 Kanals 11 Marlas, situate at Mohal Bhaura, Mauza Jaisinghpur, District Kangra. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. 3. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition as well as other material adduced on record reveals that maternal grandmother of the petitioner, late Smt. Nagro Devi, was allotted land comprised in Khasra No. 173/173, measuring 10 Kanals 11 Marlas situate at Mohal Bhaura, Mauza Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Palampur in the year 1972. 4. Though Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) directed Tehsildar, Jaisinghpur to attest mutation of land, as detailed hereinabove, vide order No. 5560 dated 28.8.1972, but fact remains that till date, needful has not been done. Smt. Nagro Devi has now expired and thereafter, her grand daughter i.e. petitioner herein represented to various authorities including Hon'ble Chief Minister, but yet no steps have been taken by the authority concerned to do the needful and as such, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 5. This Court finds from record that vide office order No.2745/PA to DC dated 27.09.2016, directions were issued to the Tehsildar, Jaisinghpur, to attest the mutation, but fact remains that till date, nothing has been done. 3 6. Consequently, in view of above, this Court, without going into merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala to ensure that representation dated 23.01.2024 as well as communication dated 19.1.2024 addressed by Director, Land Records, Himachal Pradesh to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, District Kangra are taken to its logical end expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. List on 03.11.2026. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 16, 2026 (Sunil)