Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./1859/2026 of ANJANA DEVI Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 8 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Ex. Pet. No.1859 of 2026 Decided on: 8th October, 2026 Anjana Devi ....Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2025:HHC:33168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Ex. Pet. No.1859 of 2026
Decided on: 8th October, 2026
Anjana Devi
....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. and others.
...Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)
Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced instructions dated 05.10.2026 issued by the Project Director- cum-Executive Officer, HPNRM Society, Solan, H.P. along with order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the Chief Project Director-cum-Chief Executive Officer, HPNRM Society, Solan, H.P., which are taken on record.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:33168 2
2. A perusal of order dated 17.08.2026 reveals that the representation made by the petitioner has been considered and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. As per the order dated 08.04.2026 passed in CWP No.4333 of 2026, titled, Anjana Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, only direction was given to the competent authority to decide the representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner. Since the representation has been decided by the respondents/competent authority, the mandate contained in the judgment has duly been complied with and the execution petition is disposed of as having been fully satisfied. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 8th October, 2026
Judge (naveen)