IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17261 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Lekh Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Kritika Rajta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents- State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Kritika Rajta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that despite there being complaint made to Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh with regard to encroachment made by private respondent No. 5 on the Government land, no steps have been taken for eviction. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this court sees no necessity to call for reply 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar states that pleadings adduced on record itself suggest that petitioner has filed suit for declaration in the Civil Court under Specific Relief Act against respondent No. 5 and as such, present petition is not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of suit, states that suit is not with regard to Khasra No. 43, which is a Government land, rather suit has been filed qua Khasra No. 56, which belongs to the petitioner and such suit under Specific Relief Act has been filed for declaration that petitioner is owner of land comprised in Khasra No. 56.. 4. Since no order is proposed to be passed against respondent No. 5 in the instant proceedings, there appears to be no justification to issue notice to him in these proceedings, rather he would be afforded an opportunity of being heard by the competent authority to whom directions are being issued through instant order to take appropriate action upon the complaint made by the petitioner. 5. Consequently in view of the above, this Court, without going into merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to respondent No. 3 to ensure that action, if not already taken, upon the complaint/representation (Annexure P-6 & P-7), be 3 taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Order accordingly. Needless to say authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to petitioner as well as other stakeholders, especially respondent No.5. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 30, 2026 (shankar)