Disposed¶18

Dola Ram v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Apr 2026CWP/2453/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dola Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWP No.2453 of 2025, HP High Court Shimla, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, decided 10.04.2026. Encroachment over land in Khasra Nos. 71, 1 and 2, Mohal Dadoh, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P.; complaint before Divisional Forest Officer, Nachan; proceedings pending before Tehsildar Gohar; respondent No.5 gave no reply, counsel pleaded no instructions; writ petition disposed of with direction to Competent Authority to conclude pending proceedings in accordance with law; miscellaneous applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/Competent Authority to take the proceedings pending against respondent No.5 to their logical conclusion in accordance with law. ¶18

Dola Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents/Competent Authority to take the proceedings pending against respondent No.5 to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents No. 1-4 should be directed, by issuance of an appropriate writ, to forthwith initiate appropriate proceedings against the private respondents (respondent No.5) in respect of alleged encroachment over land comprised in Khasra Nos. 71, 1 and 2, Mohal Dadoh, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P., and take the same to a logical end within a time bound frame.

¶8

Court's answer

In view of the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/Competent Authority to take the proceedings pending against respondent No.5 to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.

¶18

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, ordered to stand disposed of along with the writ petition.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.2453 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, single judge (Jyotsna Rewal Dua), decided 10.04.2026. Petitioner Dola Ram sought a writ directing respondents No. 1-4 to forthwith initiate appropriate proceedings against respondent No.5 for alleged encroachment over land comprised in Khasra Nos. 71, 1 and 2, Mohal Dadoh, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P., and to take them to a logical end within a time bound frame. Respondents No. 1 to 3 replied that the petitioner's complaint lay before respondent No.4 (Divisional Forest Officer, Nachan, District Mandi) and that proceedings against respondent No.5 for encroachment upon Government land had already been initiated and were pending adjudication before respondent No.3 (Tehsildar Gohar, District Mandi). Respondent No.5 filed no reply despite sufficient opportunities and its counsel pleaded no instructions. The court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents/Competent Authority to take the pending proceedings to their logical conclusion in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.2453 of 2025 Decided on: 10.04.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Dola Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶3

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶4

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶5

_________________________ For the petitioner:	______________________________________ Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.	__
For the respondents:	Mr.Vishwadeep Sharma, respondents No. 1 to 4.	for
	Mr. Madan Gopal, Advocate, respondent No.5.	for

¶6

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶7

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:-

¶8

“(i) The respondents No. 1-4 may be directed by way of issuance of appropriate writ to forthwith initiate appropriate proceedings against the private respondents in respect of encroachment over land comprised in Khara No. 71, 1 and 2, situated at Mohal Dadoh, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P.,

¶9

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶10

¶11

and take the same to the logical end within a time bound frame.”

¶12

2. Respondents No. 1 to 3 and 4 have filed their replies. Despite grant of sufficient opportunities, respondent No.5 has not filed reply. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 pleads no instructions. The matter has been heard at this stage.

¶13

3. Concerning petitioner’s allegations of respondent No.5 having encroached over the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 71, 1 and 2, situated at Mohal Dadoh, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P., the stand taken by respondents No. 1 to 3 in their reply is that petitioner had filed a complaint against respondent No.5 before respondent No.4 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Nachan, District Mandi; On receipt of the complaint against respondent No.5 of his having encroached upon the Government land, proceedings have been initiated against respondent No.5, which are pending for adjudication before respondent No.3 i.e. Tehsildar Gohar, District Mandi. The aforesaid stand of the respondents taken in para-1 of their reply on merits to the writ petition, is as under:-

¶14

“1. That the contents of para No.1 of petition are admitted

¶15

¶16

to the extent that petitioner is citizen of India and addresses as stated in memo of party. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed complaint against the respondent No. 5 in the office of respondent No. 4 and it is further submitted that when the complaint against the respondent No. 5 regarding the encroachment upon the Govt. land came into notice of respondent No. 3, then the appropriate proceeding has been initiated against the respondent No. 5, which is pending for adjudication in the office of respondent No. 3.”

¶17

4. In view of stand taken by the respondents in their

¶18

reply, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/Competent Authority to take the proceedings pending against respondent No.5 to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.

¶19

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶20

to stand disposed of.

¶21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶22

April 10, 2026 R.Atal

Dola Ram v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dola Ram v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Chanika Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Singh Vs the UOI and Others

Rita Devi Vs Amarjeet K Sharma

Sachinder Dutt Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Rajesh Nanda Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Sher Singh Vs UOI and Others