1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7527 of 2026 Decided on: 15.05.2026 Rohit Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P & others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Thakur and Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 3 to 5. Mr. Surinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s nomination for the office of Member, Zila Parishad, Ward No.7, Chamned, District Hamirpur, H.P. was rejected by respondent No.5 on 12.05.2026. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the aforesaid rejection. Keeping in view the urgency projected in the matter by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 election schedule notified by respondent No.2 on 29.04.2026 for ensuing elections to the State Panchayati Raj Institutions, matter has been heard at this stage with consent of learned counsel for the parties on the basis of documents and instructions placed on record for the parties. 2. Petitioner presented his nomination on 11.05.2026 for the office of Member, Zila Parishad, Ward No.7, Chamned, District Hamirpur, H.P. On 12.05.2026, respondent No.6 objected against petitioner’s candidature/ nomination on the ground that petitioner’s grand father had encroached upon the government land bearing Khasra Nos. 413/2/1, 413/2/2 and 576/20 to the extent of 02 kanals at Village Dughli, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P; Petitioner’s grandfather had applied for regularization of such encroachment on 15.08.2002. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that within two hours given to the petitioner to respond to the aforesaid objection, the petitioner filed his response and denied the allegations. Respondent No.5 has rejected petitioner’s nomination on the ground that petitioner is grandson of Sh. Khyali Ram; Petitioner’s grandfather had applied for regularization of above described government land on 15.08.2002; Petitioner had not disclosed the 3 aforesaid facts in his nomination paper. Petitioner, therefore, was declared disqualified under Section 122 (1)(c) (sic e) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. 3. Alongwith writ petition, some documents have been placed on record, more particularly, report dated 13.05.2026, from Naib -Tehsildar, Sub- Tehsil, Lambloo, District Hamirpur, H.P. alongwith other revenue documents. As per this report & appended documents, there is no encroachment over Khasra Nos. 413/2/1 and 413/2/2. Regarding third Khasra number involved in the matter i.e. 576/20 as per report, it is Gram Panchyat, Dabreda who is in possession on the spot. Report also states about there being no barricading, abadi or even cowshed existing over the aforesaid numbers. Some statements recorded by the villagers while carrying out spot inspection have also been placed on record of the writ petition. Revenue documents have also been appended. For respondent No.6 also, an application statedly moved by the petitioner’s grandfather on 15.08.2002 seeking regularization of his possession over aforesaid khasra numbers has been placed on record. In terms of the report prepared on the said application, Khasra No. 576/20 was “banjar” & khasra numbers 4 413/2/1 & 413/2/2 were found to be cultivated with no mention of construction over the same. It was submitted during hearing for the petitioner that petitioner’s grandfather passed away in the year 2017; Almost nine years have gone by thereafter and none of the petitioner’s family members was in possession of aforesaid numbers. 4. In view of the documents placed on record, in my considered view petitioner’s case for acceptance/ rejection of his nomination in the given facts is required to be considered afresh by respondent No.5 and that too without disturbing the election schedule notified by respondent No.2. Ordered accordingly. In view of above, impugned order dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) is quashed & set- aside. Considering notified election schedule, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall place documents appended with the present writ petition before respondent No.5 by 4:30 P.M today. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 assures that within an hour thereafter respondent No.5 shall take fresh call upon petitioner’s nomination. Ordered accordingly. 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 5 petitioner’s eligibility/ disqualification. It is for respondent No.5 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 15, 2026 Judge yogesh