Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/16549/2026 of SUSHIL SHARMA Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 24 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16549 of 2026 Date of Decision: 24.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sushil Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.16549 of 2026
Date of Decision: 24.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sushil Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents No. 1 to 5. __________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely the grouse of petitioner as has been highlighted in petition and further canvassed by Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel representing him, is that despite there being repeated complaints with regard to encroachment made by the private respondent on the government land, no action is being taken.
2. Having regard to the nature of dispute and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents No. 1 to 5, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Since no prejudicial order is being passed against respondent No. 6 in the instant proceedings, it is also not necessary to issue notice to him at this stage
3. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition as well as documents adduced on record, this Court finds that petitioner by way of representation dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P-2) apprised Deputy Commissioner, Kullu that person namely Ran Bahadur has raised construction of one floor house on the government land and as such, his electricity and water connection be disconnected, but fact remains that till date, no action has been taken upon the same, as such petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.
4. Careful perusal of communication dated 22.08.2026 (Annexure P-3) reveals that Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Kullu, forwarded the complaint of the petitioner to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Manali, District Kullu for necessary action. Aforesaid authority further referred the matter to Tehsildar, Manali, District Kullu (Annexure P-4). Careful perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that Tehsildar, Manali further sent the matter to Kanungo, Manali, but fact remains that till date encroachment made upon the government land by private respondent has not been removed.
5. Consequently, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to Deputy Commissioner, Kullu to ensure that complaint dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner with regard to encroachment on the government land is taken to its logical end expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as private respondent No. 6 and pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
September 24, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge