IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7645 of 2026 Decided on: 15.05.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Khursheeda ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani K Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.7. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Caveat Petition No.194 of 2026 Discharged. Caveat petition to sand disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - CWP No. 7645 of 2026 Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Surender Sharma and Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5, respondent No. 6 and respondent No.7, respectively. 2. Petitioner’s nomination for the post of Pradhan Gram Panchayat Sanwal, Tehsil Tissa, District Chamba, H.P., has been rejected by respondent No.5 on 13.05.2026. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. Keeping in view urgency of the matter projected by learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of election schedule notified by respondent No.6 for ensuing elections to the State Panchayati Raj Institutions vide notification dated 29.04.2026, the matter has been heard at this stage with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. A complaint against the petitioner’s nomination was preferred by respondent No.7 on 12.05.2026, alleging encroachment made by petitioner’s father-in-law over - 3 - government land. The impugned order reflects that in response to the aforesaid complaint, petitioner presented a report dated 23.04.2026 from Tehsildar Churah, District Chamba before respondent No.7. The said report certifies there being no encroachment having been made by Sh. Gania i.e. petitioner’s father-in-law; That there was no encroachment case registered against petitioner’s father-in- law. For some reasons, not reflected in the impugned order, respondent No.5 did not consider the report of Tehsildar Churah, District Chamba as sufficient. It appears that before respondent No.5, petitioner also referred to a notification/office letter dated 08.05.2026 issued by the Department of Panchayati Raj, Himachal Pradesh, in terms of which, in case a person had submitted a claim under Forest Rights Act 2006 and such claim was pending consideration before the Competent Authority, such person was not to incur disqualification under Section 122(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 merely on the ground of occupation of such land till the final adjudication of the claim in accordance with law. It also appears that respondent No.5 desired the said notification as also the related documents - 4 - from the petitioner, which at that time the petitioner could not produce. For the aforesaid reasons, petitioner’s nomination was rejected. Office letter dated 08.05.2026, referred to above has been appended with the writ petition. Report of Tehsildar Churah, District Chamba favours the petitioner. 5. In view of above, in my considered view, the rejection of petitioner’s nomination by respondent No.5 for the reasons stated in order dated 13.05.2026, cannot be sustained. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) is set aside. Respondent No.5 is directed to re-consider petitioner’s nomination by 4:00 p.m. today in accordance with law, on the basis of material already on record before him. It is made clear that this order has been passed only on the basis of impugned rejection and is not to be considered as an opinion in any manner upon petitioner’s eligibility/disqualification. It is for respondent No.5 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. - 5 - Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 15, 2026 R.Atal