Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/100/2018 of PREMA DEVI Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 23 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.100 of 2018 Date of Decision: 23.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Prema Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents
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.100 of 2018 Date of Decision: 23.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Prema Devi
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents- State.
____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Learned representing the petitioner, while making available copy of order dated 20.08.2026, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.7537/2026 titled as Vikesh Rohta & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that since the State Government is contemplating a policy for which necessary approval is required from the Union of India for regularization of the encroachment, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case she is permitted to make a representation to the competent authority, praying therein for regularization of encroachment allegedly made by 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 her on government land within a period of two weeks and till the time, the same is not decided in accordance with law, petitioner may not be evicted pursuant to the order of eviction laid challenged in the instant proceedings.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Having carefully perused order dated 20.8.2026, passed in Vikesh Rohta’s case (supra), this Court finds that learned Advocate General has made a statement before the Hon’ble Apex Court that State Government is contemplating a policy for which necessary approval is required from the Union of India and as such, reference has already been made to the Union of India.
4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation to the competent authority within a period of four weeks, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, in accordance with law. However, till the disposal of the representation, petitioner shall not be evicted in terms of the order of eviction being challenged in the instant proceedings. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September,23,2026 (shankar)