Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/15615/2026 of JOGINDER KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 10 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15615 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Joginder Kumar …….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.15615 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Joginder Kumar
…….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. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that despite there being complaint made by the petitioner with regard to encroachment upon the government land by respondents No.4 to 6, no action has been taken.
2. Careful perusal of the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record further reveals that though after receipt of complaint, as detailed hereinabove, revenue authorities got the land 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
demarcated, but yet no action has been taken against the encroachers.
3. Having regard to the nature of dispute and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though he has reason to presume and believe that by now, appropriate action in accordance with law must have been taken against respondents No. 4 to 6, if they have encroached upon the Government land, but if not, complaint made by the petitioner (Annexure P-2) shall be taken to its logical end expeditiously.
4. Consequently, in view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to respondent No. 3 to take the complaint of the petitioner with regard to encroachment allegedly made by respondent No. 4 to 6 to its logical end expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 to 6 and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 10, 2026 (Sunil)