IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5191 of 2026 Decided on: 16.04.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Inderjit Singh and Anr. ....Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of nature of relief claimed by the petitioners, matter has been heard at this stage without calling for reply from the respondents. 2. Petitioners filed a Revision Petition under Section 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (the Act in short) before respondent No.3 on 14.03.2004. Respondent No.3-the Director Consolidation of Holdings, allowed the petition on 05.10.2005 and remanded the case to the concerned Consolidation Officer. Fresh proceedings were initiated by the concerned Consolidation Officer and order was passed on 20.11.2006. While the aforesaid order was being executed i.e. by giving possession to the petitioners at the spot, according to the petitioners a typographical mistake was noticed in the order. The petitioner approached the concerned Consolidation Officer for correction of the typographical mistake, however, the Consolidation Officer stated that the mistake was in the order dated 05.10.2005, passed by respondent No.3 and it was required to be corrected by the said Authority. Petitioners approached respondent No.3 by moving application under Section 56 of the Act read with Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the year 2007 seeking necessary correction in the order dated 05.10.2005 and consequently in the order dated 20.11.2006. In the year 2013, respondent No.3 transferred the - 3 - proceedings in the said application to respondent No.2-the Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala. The proceedings were registered as Revenue Appeal No. 6/2016. Petitioners’ grievance is that till date the Revenue Appeal No. 6/2016, arising out of Original Case No. 54 of 2004 (Inderjeet Singh and Ors Vs. Smt. Jagdish and Ors) is pending adjudication before respondent No.2. Petitioners seek direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending proceedings within a time bound schedule. 3. Without looking to the maintainability of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the age of the proceedings stated to be still pending before respondent No.2, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/Competent Authority to decide the pending proceedings under reference in accordance with law, within eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 16, 2026 R.Atal