Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2588/2026 on 3 November 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.
2026:HHC:48536
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Ex. Petition No. 2588 of 2026
Date of decision: 03.11.2026. Dalip Kumar
...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others
...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge:
Petitioner has come up before this Court, seeking execution/implementation of the order/judgment dated 10.08.2026 [Annexure E-1], passed in CWP No. 4724 of 2026, titled as Dalip Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, had passed the following orders:- “Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.8.2025 (Annexure P-1) as well as order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) are quashed. Letter dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure P-11) is also quashed and set aside.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Consequences to ensue. However, respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner departmentally in terms of notification Annexure P-2, dated 22.02.2025, in accordance with law.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the judgment dated 10.8.2026 [Annexure E-1], petitioner has submitted representation to Director Land Records on 13.8.2026 [Annexure E-2], but neither the judgment has been complied with nor any compliance/speaking order has been conveyed to the petitioner till date.
3. Heard.
4. Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, Learned Additional Advocate General, waives service of notice on behalf of respondents.
5. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on Instructions, states that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, Respondents are directed to implement the order/judgment in a time bound manner. [Statement Taken On Record].
6. Prayer, being innocuous, is not opposed by Learned Counsel for the Respondents also.
7. Considering the matter in above perspective, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents-
Competent Authority to implement the order/judgment within a period of four weeks from today.
8. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition stands disposed of, alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge November 03, 2026. (kck)