IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7755 of 2026 Decided on: 18.05.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Susheel Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1, 3 and 5 Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Nemo for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order dated 12.05.2026, passed by respondent No.3, rejecting his nomination for the office of Up-Pradhan Gram Panchayat Kuther, Development Block Nagrota Suriyan, Tehsil Jawali, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - Distict Kangra, H.P. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Respondent No.3 has not accepted petitioner’s nomination on the ground of his being an encroacher and facing legal proceedings on that count. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that in Civil Suit No. 254 of 2026, vide judgment and decree 16.05.2015, learned Civil Court has dismissed petitioner’s claim of ownership and confirmed that the land in question belongs to the State Government, recognizing petitioner as unauthorized occupant liable for eviction from Khasra Nos. 1806 and 1805 land measuring 0-01-70 Hms, owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh as per revenue record. Petitioner has reportedly assailed the aforesaid judgment and decree by preferring an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra, where it is still pending adjudication. Petitioner is also facing proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. In view of above, the relief prayed for the petitioner - 3 - alleging improper rejection of his nomination for the office of Up Pardhan of the concerned Panchayat, cannot be granted to him in this writ petition. The petitioner has efficacious remedy under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 for redressal of his grievances against alleged improper rejection of his nomination. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is dismissed in view of statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 18, 2026 R.Atal