Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/7623/2022 on 16 October 2026
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.7623 of 2022
Date of Decision: 16.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ M/s Wonder Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Chouhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State.
Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. __________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
CMP No. 27399 of 2026
For the reasons stated in the application for early hearing, same is allowed. The application is disposed of.
CWP No. 7623 of 2022
2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “A) That the penal provision in proviso of (2) (h) of Section 118 H.P. Tenancy Act which has been inserted by the State of Himachal
Pradesh by amended Act 9 of 1997 may kindly declared unconstitutional, ultravirus to the Contitution of India. B) That the impugned orders containing in Annexure P-12, P-13 and P-15 and order dated 13.6.2022 , Annexure P-20, may kindly be quashed and set aside. C) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give similar treatment to the petitioner as given to M/s Suncity and M/s Chaudhary developers wherein extension for utilisation of land has been granted beyond three years period under Section118 of H.P Land Tenancy Act 1972.”
3. Though pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed reply, wherein claim of the petitioner has been refuted on various grounds, but learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that this Court can dispose of the present petition with direction to respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner on account of subsequent decisions, if any, taken in the matter.
4. Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on account of subsequent decisions, if any, taken in the matter, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
October 16, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge