2026:HHC:9120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2742 of 2026 Decided on: 19.03.2026 ______________________________________________________________ M/s Gee Cee Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others .. ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 7/State. Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.8/UOI. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The challenge in the present case is to the show cause notice dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-18) issued by respondent No.7- Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Sub Tehsil Taklech, under Sections 163 and 59 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 and order dated 06.02.2026 whereby 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2026:HHC:9120 some preliminary objections decided (Annexure P-20) as such are sought to be challenged, whereby the Assistant Collector has given last opportunity to produce the draft lease deed for approval and final opportunity and failure to do so will result in the final order of assessment and ejectment. 2. A prayer has also been made to declare Rules 7 & 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Lease Rules, 2013 as ultra vires on the ground that forest land diverted under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 retains its character and cannot be subject matter of lease, transfer and mutation. 3. A perusal of the petition would go on to show that there was an implementation agreement executed way back on 31.08.2012 (Annexure P-6) between the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the present petitioner, which also provided that the land as such for the temporary structure has to be taken on lease basis at the rate approved by the Government for the agreement period the first party and the petitioner as such, and the Government was to arrange for the short term lease for the period the actual requirement not exceeding five years. The relevant portion reads as under: -3- 2026:HHC:9120 “8. LAND. 8.1. The First Party shall acquire at the request and expense of the Second Party within the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, such private lands within the State of Himachal Pradesh as may be required by the Second Party and as considered appropriate by the First Party for the implementation of the Project. The Second Party shall also be allowed to acquire such land through direct negotiations with the owners in accordance with the prevailing laws, rules and regulations in the State. 8.2 Land whether private or Government except for permanent structures relating to the Project such as water conductor system, power houses building, switchyard area etc. shall be taken only on lease basis at the rates approved by the Government for the agreement period. The First Party shall acquire the land for the permanent structures by invoking the compulsory provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in order to expedite the execution of Projects. 8.3. The First Party shall arrange for the short term lease for a period as per the actual requirement not exceeding five years, of Government land required by the Second Party for temporary works for the construction of the Project as considered appropriate by the First Party on such terms, conditions and rates as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time.” 4. An Arbitration Clause is also there in the said agreement, which reads as under: -4- 2026:HHC:9120 “16. ARBITRATION” “Any difference and/or disputes arising at any time between the parties out of this IA or interpretation thereof shall be endeavored to be resolved by the parties hereto by mutual negotiations, failing which, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitrator to be appointed as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, all disputes shall be settled within the jurisdiction of Courts of Himachal Pradesh.” 5. Apparently, there is sufficient communication on record as such, to show that way back on 2.1.2018, (Annexure P-12) sanction for lease in favour of the petitioner was for a period of 40 years granted by the Collector with lease amount of Rs.3,88,970/- for the first five years w.e.f. 12.11.2012 to 11.11.2017 which was to govern by the H.P. Lease Rules and was to be enhanced every five years. The land measures 01-98-93 Hectares for the Hydro Power Project of Jogni-II (4.8 MW) 6. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.09.2018 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner was also asked to execute the lease deed within a period of six months from the date of sanction of lease of land as per Rule 13 of H.P. Lease Rules, 2011 and take necessary actions. -5- 2026:HHC:9120 7. It is in such circumstances, apparently show cause notice dated 28.01.2026 has been issued by noticing that despite a lapse of over eight years, they have failed to execute the registered lease deed, and therefore, occupation as such is stated to be unauthorized. It is not disputed that the petitioner has also filed reply and raised various objections as such. Preliminary objections have been dismissed on 06.02.2026. 8. Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, further provides for a provision of an appeal against any order passed by the Assistant Collector to the Collector. 9. It is in such circumstances we are of the considered opinion that firstly the petition is pre-mature to the very extent as the challenge as such is to the show cause notice which is apparently on the basis of implementation agreement and sanction was also granted for entering into lease which was also not adhered to. Merely because the vires, as such, are under challenge, would not give a cause of action to file the present petition, having been in possession of the State land for the last over 8 years. 10. Thus, it is always open to the petitioner to get a final order from the authorities and challenge the same in -6- 2026:HHC:9120 accordance with law and the question of vires thus, can also be raised at a subsequent point of time once the factual matrix is thrashed out by the assessing authority. 11. Resultantly, we dismiss the present petition being pre-mature. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S.Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 19th March, 2026 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (GR/Ankit) Judge