Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:39402 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. : 631 of 2024 Decided on : 14.09.2026 M.C. Dharamshala …Petitioner Versus Tek Chand Rana & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.L.Sood, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sanjivini Sood & Mr. Vidur Kapur, Advocates, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional A.Gs., with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy A.G., for respondent No. 2. Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) PetitionerMunicipal Corporation Dharamshala, has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 20.01.2024, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 15 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2026:HHC:39402 D/XIV/2023, titled as “Tek Chand Rana Vs State of H.P. & Anr.”.
2. By way of order dated 20.01.2024, the learned District Judge, has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 1, against the orders dated 04.08.2023 and 18.09.2023, passed by learned Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Dharamshala and remanded back the matter for decision afresh.
3.
Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition before this Court, as borne out from the documents annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: 3.1 According to petitionerMunicipal Corporation Dharamshala, respondent No. 1 Tek Chand Rana, has applied for sanction of his building plan, to the petitioner corporation along with his building plan. His affidavit dated 20.12.2016, was found to be incorrect, as respondent No. 1 has not brought to the knowledge of petitioner corporation about the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge, Dharamshala, wherein, 13 square meters of the land comprised in Khasra No. 996/1 was handed over to Sandeep Kumar. The said affidavit was falsely submitted
3 2026:HHC:39402 for the purpose of getting the map sanctioned fraudulently in his favour. As such, he has committed forgery. Not only this, respondent has encroached upon the Municipal Corporation road laying in front of his disputed building, which is a public road. 3.2 It is the further case of the petitioner that the permission was granted to respondent No. 1 to raise construction of three storeyed residential building, on 04.09.2017, on the basis of the site plan/maps, affidavit and other documents, submitted by him. However, completion certificate has not been issued by the petitioner as substantial and extensive deviations and encroachments have been found, to have been done by respondent No. 1, at the spot. On the complaint of one Smt. Urmila Rana, proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 1. Those were also in compliance to the directions of Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2077/2019 and CWP No. 2370/2020. 3.3 Thereafter, the Junior Engineer and Draftsman of the Corporation had visited the spot on 01.02.2020 and submitted the inspection report. Since, the construction raised by respondent No. 1 was found totally in violation of
4 2026:HHC:39402 the permissible norms, as such, show cause notice, under Section 254 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 dated 13.02.2020, was issued, calling upon him, to stop the illegal construction. Instead of complying with the notice, respondent No. 1 has challenged the measurement done by the officials of Municipal Corporation Dharamshala, vide letter dated 22.02.2020. 3.4 Since, respondent No. 1 did not desist from his act, as such, he was again directed to do the needful, viz., modifying the floor area within permissible norms, vide
order dated 23.06.2020, upon which, respondent No. 1 has submitted the revised building plan in Form 26. However, he has concealed the deviations already made by him and shown the net deviation area as 4.4 square meter wrongly. In this regard, as per the inspection report of DMC, respondent No. 1 has already made deviations more than permissible limits of 10%. 3.5 In pursuance of the direction dated 07.09.2020, passed by this Court, in CWP No. 2370/2020, the land comprised in Khasra No. 996, was got demarcated by Naib Tehsildar Dharamshala. The said land was found to be joint, but, the site plan of this Khasra number has been
5 2026:HHC:39402 approved by the Town and Country Planning. In pursuance of the directions of this Court in CWP No. 2370/2020, the proceedings were concluded against respondent No. 1. 3.6 Thereafter Dharamshala Municipal Corporation has rejected the application for revised building plan, vide
order dated 07.09.2021, which was assailed by respondent No. 1, by filing the appeal under Section 254 (5A) of HP Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, before the learned Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala. His appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to Municipal
Corporation
Dharamshala,
for
its reconsideration after taking into account the reasons cited and giving the opportunity of being heard to respondent No. 1 and other coowners.
4. After the remand order, passed by learned Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala, on 08.12.2021, the Municipal Corporation Dharamshala, served a notice on 04.08.2023, upon respondent No. 1, under Section 53(1) of Municipal Corporation Act, to demolish the unauthorized construction carried out by him. The said notice was responded by respondent No. 1
6 2026:HHC:39402 and after considering the said reply, on 18.09.2023, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Dharamshala,
directed to remove the unauthorized construction by respondent No. 1 Tek Chand Rana. 5. Against the said order dated 18.09.2023, respondent No. 1 instead of filing the appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, under the provisions of sub Section (2) of Section 253 of HP Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, straightway filed the CWP No. 6769 of 2023, titled as ‘Tek Chand Rana Vs State of H.P. & Anr’, before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2023, by directing respondent No. 1 to file an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala and who was further directed to dispose of the same in time bound manner. 6. Consequently, respondent No. 1 has filed the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 15D/XIV/2013, which was allowed by learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, by remanding the matter back to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Dharamshala. 7. The said order has been assailed before this Court. 7 2026:HHC:39402
8. Perusal of the order passed by the learned District Judge, clearly demonstrates that learned District Judge, after considering all the rival contentions, especially, the order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner Dharamshala, dated 08.12.2021, remanded the case to respondent No. 2, for reconsideration. 9. Admittedly, the notices issued by the Commissioner, Dharamshala Municipal Corporation, dated 04.08.2023, has duly been replied by the respondent, mentioning each and every fact. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Dharamshala Municipal Corporation has passed the order dated 18.09.2023, directing him to remove/demolish the
unauthorized construction/ deviations, made by Sh. Tek Chand Rana, in the disputed house situated at Upper Barol, P.O. Dari, Ward No. 12, Dharamshala Municipal Corporation. 10. The learned District Judge, after considering the rival contentions, has remanded back the matter, by passing the following order:
“24. In view of the findings on point No. 1 above, the appeal is allowed and the orders dated 04.08.2023 and 19.08.2023 being illegal and perverse are set aside. The case is remanded to respondent No. 2 to decide the same afresh as per the directions passed by the Divisional Commissioner vide his order dated 08.12.2021. The application moved by the appellate thereby having
8 2026:HHC:39402 become infructuous stands dismissed. There is no order as to cost. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly.
The record of respondent No. 2 along with a copy of this order be returned and the file of this court after due completion be consigned to the record room.”
11. The main ground, upon which, the learned District Judge, has remanded the matter is qua the non compliance of proviso added to Section 253 of HP Municipal Corporation Act. Perusal of the same shows that the matter has been remanded on account of non compliance of the statutory provisions of HP Municipal Corporation Act. 12. Once, the order has been passed to remand back the matter, by the learned District Judge, on account of noncomplying with the specific directions passed by the Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 08.12.2021, the same cannot be interfered with, by this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it cannot be held that the learned District Judge has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. 13. Considering the above facts, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned findings passed by learned District Judge, as an appellate Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 9 2026:HHC:39402
14. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present petition. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s)
disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge 14th September, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)