Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/14853/2026 of AJAY KUMAR Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 31 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14853 of 2026 Date of Decision: 31.08.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram
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.14853 of 2026
Date of Decision: 31.08.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar & Anr.
……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kamal Sharma, 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, J. (Oral)
Though in terms of order dated 26.08.2026, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, placed on record communication dated 29.08.2026 issued under the signatures of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, but no time frame has been given in the same within which case filed under Section 54 of HP Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (in short “Act”), which is pending for the last 28 years, shall be decided. It appears from the aforesaid communication that on account of non-completion of service of the respondents, afore case could not be taken to its logical end, but since service upon the respondents now stands completed, this court sees no reason for the authority concerned to further delay the proceedings. Accordingly, present
2 petition is disposed of with a direction to Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, to ensure that case No. 206 of 1998, titled Balbir Singh and others Vs. Amin Chand and others, pending under Section 54 of the Act, is decided within a period of three months from today.
2. Though instructions placed on record reveal that at present, post of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, is lying vacant, but that cannot be an excuse to delay the pending matters, and as such, this court hopes and trusts that competent authority would ensure that post of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, is filled up at the earliest, or the additional charge thereof be given to some other officer, so that judicial work is not hampered for an indefinite period.
August 31, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)
Judge