Daulat Ram Vs the State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Daulat Ram Vs the State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to withdraw the writ petition and to file a fresh petition in accordance with law after incorporating necessary pleadings and supporting documents; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents No. 2 to 4 were to be directed to adjudicate the petitioner's representation/application (Annexure P-3 to Annexure P-5) in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, including Chapter IX (Sections 122 to 135), moved in partition proceedings before the learned Tehsildar Dadahu, District Sirmour, H.P., and before respondents No. 2 and 3 with regard to inaction of respondent No. 4. (Pleaded relief only; not adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn.) +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.11944 of 2026, Daulat Ram v. State of HP and Ors., High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided on 17.07.2026 by Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua. The petitioner had sought (i) directions to respondents No. 2 to 4 to adjudicate his representations/applications (Annexures P-3 to P-5) in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, including Chapter IX (Sections 122 to 135), moved in partition proceedings before the learned Tehsildar Dadahu, District Sirmour, H.P., and before respondents No. 2 and 3 with regard to inaction of respondent No. 4; and (ii) an opportunity of hearing and production of relevant record to establish his rights over the village common land in ongoing partition proceedings vide Partition Case No.08/09 of 2024 concerning Revenue village Chhau-Bhogar, Tehsil Dadahu, District Sirmour, H.P., carried out by respondent No. 4. Before adjudication on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition lacked adequate pleadings and that necessary documents had inadvertently not been placed on record, and sought permission to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh petition. Granting such liberty, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stood disposed of. No issue was adjudicated and no ratio emerges from this order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.11944 of 2026

Decided on: 17.07.2026

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Daulat Ram …..Petitioner

Versus

State of HP and Ors . .....Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr Naresh K Tomar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of

following substantive reliefs:

“(i) That the respondent No. 2 to 4 may kindly be directed to adjudicate the representation/application i.e. Annexure P-3 to Annexure P-5 in accordance with the provision of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 as well as provision contain in Chapter IX under Section 122 to 135 in Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, which has been moved by the petitioner in partition proceedings before Learned Tehsildar Dadahu, District Sirmour, H.P. and before

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

2

respondent No. 2 and 3 with regard to inaction of respondent No. 4.

ii) That the respondents may also be directed to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well to produced all relevant record to establish his rights with regard to the village common land in partition proceedings vide Partition Case No.08/09 of 2024 being carried out by respondent No. 4 with respect to village common land partition of Revenue village Chhau-Bhogar, Tehsil Dadahu, District Sirmour, H.P. which are in progress before the respondent No. 4.”

2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the writ petition does not contain adequate pleadings, to substantiate the grievance of the petitioner. Necessary documents have also inadvertently not been placed on record, therefore, petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition in accordance with law after incorporating necessary pleadings and supporting documents.

3. Granting such liberty, present writ petition to stand dismissed as withdrawn.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 17, 2026 Judge R.Atal