Rajinder Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rajinder Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in view of the Deputy Advocate General's fair statement; respondents directed to do the needful in terms of the order/judgment dated 01.04.2024 passed by this Court, positively within three weeks if not already done, failing which the petitioners may seek revival of the proceedings for appropriate action towards implementation.

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the respondents to implement/execute the order/judgment dated 01.04.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No. 2680 of 2024, in light of the alleged failure to comply with the earlier direction regarding consideration of the petitioners' prayer for Land Loser Certificates.

Court's answer

This Court disposed of the Execution Petition with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the order/judgment dated 01.04.2024 passed by this Court, positively within a period of three weeks from the date of decision, if not already done.

Ratio / Principle

If the respondents fail to comply within the stipulated period of three weeks, the petitioners would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law can be taken towards implementation of the judgment/order sought to be executed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition (EP No. 2416 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Sandeep Sharma, J., decided 03.12.2025) filed by Rajinder Singh & others seeking directions to the State of Himachal Pradesh & others to implement the judgment dated 01.04.2024 in CWP No. 2680 of 2024, whereby respondent No.3 was directed to consider the petitioners' prayer for issuance of Land Loser Certificates on the basis of the Patwari's report and other parameters/guidelines, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. Alleging continued non-compliance, the petitioners sought execution. On the Deputy Advocate General's fair statement that compliance had been effected or would be effected within three weeks, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the order dated 01.04.2024 positively within three weeks, if not already done, with liberty to the petitioners to revive the proceedings on default.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition No. 2416 of 2025

Date of Decision: 03.12.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Rajinder Singh & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajindera Gulati, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 01.04.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No. 2680 of 2024, titled Rajinder Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition directed respondent No.3 to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of Land Loser Certificates on the basis of the report submitted by the Patwari as well as other parameters/guidelines, if any, fixed for that purpose expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Since, despite

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

2

there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three weeks from today.

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of order/judgment dated 01.04.2024 passed by this Court, positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioners would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 03,2025 (shankar)