IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2905 of 2026 Decided on: 24.03.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manju Lata …..Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. & Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Yogita Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 9. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner primarily seeks quashing of alleged illegal orders passed by the Revenue Authorities viz orders dated 29.10.1985, 04.06.1986, 25.12.1987, 31.03.1992 & 30.01.1997 and mutation No. 185 attested on 27.07.2002. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Petitioner’s father Sh. Agya Ram, died on 31.01.2021. The case set up by the petitioner in furtherance of relief claimed is that: - (i) As per jamabandi for the year 1942-43, land measuring 8 canals, comprised in Khasra No. 1152 had been recorded in the name of the petitioner’s grandfather Dewana and grand-uncle Bhagwana as non-occupancy tenants. (ii) In the jamabandi for the year 1961-62, the aforesaid land was shown to have been transferred in favour of one Sh. Achhar Singh by changing the Khasra No. from 1152 to 1151, statedly without notice issued to petitioner’s predecessors. (iii) During Bandobast in the year 1981-82, Khasra No. 1151 was further divided into new Khasra number and allotted to late Sh. Achhar Singh. (iv) Khasra No. 1150, which originally belonged to petitioner’s predecessors and had road frontage, was also converted into several numbers and allotted in favour of aforesaid Achhar Singh. Petitioner pleads that despite the above entries, physical possession of the land remained with her predecessors. 3 (v). In jamabandi for the year 1998-99 an illegal, fraudulent and forcible entry was made in favour of late Sh. Achhar Singh as “Gair Mourasi’. On the basis of this entry, mutation No. 185 was sanctioned, even though it was petitioner’s family, that had been in actual possession over the land. (vi) Petitioner’s father preferred a rectification application on 13.01.1996 before the Land Reforms Officer. The Land Reforms Officer on 29.10.1985 passed an order, confirming the possession of Sh. Achhar Singh over the land in question. Appeal preferred by petitioner’s father was dismissed by Settlement Officer on 04.06.1986. The Divisional Commissioner, on 25.12.1987, directed the parties to implead State Government as a necessary party. The Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 31.03.1992, accepted the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Pursuant to the above directions issued by the Financial Commissioner, proceedings re-started on 21.09.1996 and culminated under an order dated 30.01.1997, wherein the Land Reforms Officer again acknowledged the settled possession of Sh. Achhar Singh 4 over the land in question. Mutation No. 185 was attested in favour of Sh. Achhar Singh on 27.07.2002. (vii) Petitioner’s father also preferred a Civil Suit No. 75-1-2007 on 22.05.2007 seeking declaration and injunction. The suit was dismissed on 29.03.2019. 4. Petitioner though asserts that she and her predecessors had been enjoying continuous physical possession over the land, however, these aspects cannot be gone into in this writ petition as in terms of the pleadings, matter has been decided against the petitioner/ her predecessors concurrently by all the Revenue Authorities and the Civil Suit instituted by her late father also stood dismissed. The cause of action being urged by the petitioner is not only belated, but has also been adjudicated against the petitioner/her predecessors Disputed questions of facts have also been raised in this writ petition, which in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be gone into. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 24, 2026 Judge R.Atal