Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/15617/2026 of LEKH RAJ Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 10 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15617 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Lekh Raj …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … 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.15617 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Lekh Raj
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Mohinder Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though vide patta dated nil (Annexure P-8), he was granted nautor land as per provisions of HP Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Scheme, 1975, pursuant to which he was shown to be owner-in- possession of nautor land in the revenue record against Khata No. 375, Khasra No.2688/1, measuring 10 Kanal and area of Khasra No.2673, measuring 0.6 marlas, total measuring 10 Kanala 6 Marla, but till date, necessary entry in the revenue record has not been 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
made, as a result thereof, petitioner has not been able to enjoy the land being its owner.
2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now, necessary orders with regard to correction in the revenue record, must have been passed, but if not, same shall be passed upon the representation filed by the petitioner expeditiously.
4. Consequently, in view of above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexures P-8 to P-11) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today, if not already decided. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 10, 2026 (Sunil)