Disposed¶49

Chandu Ram Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Jun 2025CWP/2394/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP 2394/2019, decided 20.06.2025 (HHC). Keywords: Khasra No. 779; Mohal Batmana; Khata Khatouni Nos. 33 & 34; impugned revenue orders (Annexure P-11 dated 28.02.2019; Annexure P-12 dated 22.03.2019) kept in abeyance pending Civil Suit; co-owner versus encroacher; alleged donation of land to HPPWD; alleged interpolation/deletion of petitioner's name from revenue record; writ of certiorari; non-interference with possession; impleadment of Hemant Sharma as respondent No.7; merits left to Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Till the outcome of the pending Civil Suit, Annexure P-11 dated 28.02.2019 and Annexure P-12 dated 22.03.2019 shall remain in abeyance; no observation on merits; Civil Court to decide the suit uninfluenced by this Court's observations and expeditiously. ¶49

Chandu Ram Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue to quash the orders dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure P-11) and 22.03.2019 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent with respect to Khata Khatouni No. 33 & 34, more particularly Khasra No. 779, Mohal Batmana. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

To avoid prejudice to either party, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that till the outcome of the Civil Suit, Annexure P-11 dated 28.02.2019 and Annexure P-12 dated 22.03.2019 shall remain in abeyance.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

No observation has been made on the merit of the issues raised in the petition; the learned Civil Court shall decide the Civil Suit without being influenced by any observation of this Court and as expeditiously as possible.

¶48

Key takeaways

CMP No. 18223 of 2022 is allowed and Hemant Sharma is impleaded as respondent No.7 in the writ petition.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla), single Bench (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) — CWP No. 2394 of 2019, decided 20.06.2025. Petitioner challenged orders dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure P-11) and 22.03.2019 (Annexure P-12) concerning Khata Khatouni Nos. 33 & 34, Khasra No. 779, Mohal Batmana, claiming co-ownership and alleging interpolation of revenue records deleting his name; a Civil Suit qua his right over the khasra number is pending. By a Coordinate Bench order dated 19.09.2019, revenue officers had been called to explain entertaining the private dispute and respondents were restrained from interfering with petitioner's possession. The Court declined to decide the merits to avoid prejudicing either party and disposed of the petition directing that both impugned annexures remain in abeyance till the outcome of the Civil Suit, clarifying that no observation was made on merits and the Civil Court should decide the suit uninfluenced and expeditiously. CMP No. 18223 of 2022 allowed; Hemant Sharma impleaded as respondent No.7.

¶1

2025:HHC:19154

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 2394 of 2019. Decided on : 20.06.2025

¶4

Chandu Ram Sharma.

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the petitioner : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, for the applicant/proposed respondent.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶13

CMP No. 18223 of 2022

¶14

By way of this application, a prayer has been made to implead applicant Sh. Hemant Sharma, as party respondent in the present writ petition.

¶15

As there is no objection to the application and

¶16

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

¶18

2025:HHC:19154

¶19

keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. Mr. Hemant Sharma, is hereby impleaded as

¶20

respondent No.7. Application stands disposed of.

¶21

CWP No. 2394 of 2019

¶22

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶23

“i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the illegal order dated 28.02.2019 Annexure P-11 and 22.03.2019 Annexure P- 12 passed by respondent with respect to Khata Khatouni No. 33 & 34 more particular Khasra No. 779 Mohal Batmana.

¶24

ii) That the respondents may be directed not to interfere peaceful possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatouni No. 33 & 34 more particular Khasra No. 779 Mohal Batmana”

¶25

When this case was heard by Hon’ble Coordinate

¶26

Bench of this Court on 19.09.2019, the following order was passed:-

¶27

“Heard for some time. Let the then Collector, Sub Division, Shimla (Rural), Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Dhami and Ms. Debashweta Banik, Additional Deputy Commissioner,

¶28

¶29

2025:HHC:19154

¶30

explain under what circumstances and under which provision of law they have entertained the instant dispute and passed various orders especially when the same is of private nature as is borne out from the documents placed on record. Admittedly, the disputed Khasra No. 779 of Village Batmana belongs to various individual shareholders including the petitioner and not to the government and, therefore, there is no question of the petitioner having encroached thereupon, more particularly, when he is one of the co-owners.

¶31

At this stage, a feeble attempt has been made by the learned Deputy Advocate General to convince this Court that the land in question has been donated by the other co-sharers in favour of the HPPWD and thus the petitioner has encroached over the said land. However, he was not in a position to deny that the land still continues to be joint amongst the various co- sharers and is so reflected in the revenue record, more particularly, Annexure P-4.

¶32

Therefore, even if it is accepted that some of the co-sharers have donated the land in favour of HPPWD, even then no specific portion thereof could have been donated in absence of it being partitioned and on the

¶33

¶34

2025:HHC:19154

¶35

same analogy there is no question of the petitioner being an encroacher over Khasra No. 779 of which admittedly he is one of the co-owners.

¶36

CMP No. 9511 of 2019

¶37

Reply within four weeks. In the meanwhile, respondents are restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the land comprised in Khata Khatouni No. 33 & 34, more particularly, Khasra No. 779, Mohal Batmana, till further orders.

¶38

Copy dasti.”

¶39

Today, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to defeat the legitimate rights of the petitioner, at his back, the revenue records stand interpolated and the name of the petitioner in his capacity as co-owner viza-viz Khasra No. 779, has been deleted from the Revenue Record. He further submitted that to this effect the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit, which is pending adjudication and in the light of this fact, in case, impugned Annexures are given effect to, the very purpose of filing the Civil Suit, would be defeated. He also referred to the observations made by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in order dated 19.09.2019 and submitted that in the light of the fact that there is an observation that

¶40

¶41

2025:HHC:19154

¶42

petitioner cannot be construed to be an encroacher upon Khasra No. 779 as he admittedly is one of the co-owners, the impugned orders, if allowed to remain on record, shall prejudice the interest of the petitioner.

¶43

On the other hand, Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondent, submitted that the petitioner has no right over Khasra No. 779 in any capacity, whatsoever. Even if there was any right of the petitioner, he has already forgone that right. He further submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit, the issues that are being agitated in this petition, should also have been agitated in the Civil Suit itself and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

¶44

Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the private respondent, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the fact that the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit qua his right over Khasra No. 779, which is pending adjudication, it would not be in the interest of either of the the parties, in case, this Court makes any observation viz-a-

¶45

¶46

2025:HHC:19154

¶47

viz the issues that have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition on merit. Therefore, to avoid causing prejudice to either of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that till the outcome of the Civil Suit, Annexure P-11, dated 28.02.2019 and Annexure P-12, dated 22.03.2019, shall remain in abeyance.

¶48

It is again clarified that this Court has not made any observation as far as the merit of the issues raised in this petition are concerned and learned Civil Court shall decide the Civil Suit without being influenced by any observation made by this Court, in this writ petition and endeavour be made by learned Civil Court to decide the Civil Suit, as expeditiously as possible.

¶49

The petition is disposed of, in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶50

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶51

June 20, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)

Chandu Ram Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandu Ram Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

NTPC Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Others

NTPC Limited Vs State of Hp and Ors.

NTPC Limited Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Pritam Singh and Others Vs M. Sudha Devi and Another

Pravesh Vs State of Hp and Others

Yoginder Kumar Thakur Vs Hpsebl