Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/16258/2026 of HRITIK GUPTA Vs NAIB TEHSILDAR-cum-ASSISTANT COLLECTOR GRADE-II AND OTHERS on 17 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16258 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Hritik Gupta …….Petitioners Versus Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector & 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.16258 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Hritik Gupta
…….Petitioners
Versus
Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Petitioner Sh. Hritik Gupta in person,
through video conferencing.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.
____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Hritik Gupta, (petitioner in person), who join the proceedings though video conferencing, is that partition proceedings initiated at this behest in the year 2023, but more than three years have passed and same have not been taken to its logical end. He states that though all the respondents stand proceeded against ex-parte, but yet authority responsible for conducting the partition proceedings is not concluding the partition, as a result thereof, great prejudice is caused to him.
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that present petition is not maintainable, rather appropriate remedy, if any, for the petitioner lies somewhere.
3. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, coupled with the statement made by the petitioner in person, this Court finds that partition proceedings were initiated in the year 2023 and thereafter, all the respondents were proceeded against exparte on 30.11.2024. Though, authority concerned prepared mode of partition in the month of March, 2026, but fact remains that till date proceedings have not been concluded and as such, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the authority concerned to do the needful in time bound manner.
4. Having taken note of aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with the direction to respondent No.4 to conclude the partition proceedings in case No. 52(P)R-2/2023, titled Hritik Gupta vs. Virender Kashyap and others expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
List for compliance on 29.10.2026.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 17,2026 (shankar)