Disposed¶19

Inderjit Singh and Another aged about 78 years, Son of Shri Nasib Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Apr 2026CWP/5191/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Time-bound disposal direction; eight weeks; Revenue Appeal No. 6/2016 pending before Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala; correction of typographical mistake in consolidation order dated 05.10.2005; Section 54 and Section 56, Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971; Sections 151 and 152, Code of Civil Procedure; writ disposed without examining maintainability; CWP No.5191 of 2026; High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2/Competent Authority to decide the pending proceedings (Revenue Appeal No. 6/2016) in accordance with law within eight weeks; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶19

Inderjit Singh and Another aged about 78 years, Son of Shri Nasib Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (Divisional Commissioner, Kangra) should be directed to decide the long-pending Revenue Appeal No. 6/2016 within a time-bound schedule.

¶18

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/Competent Authority to decide the pending proceedings (Revenue Appeal No. 6/2016) in accordance with law within eight weeks.

¶19

Key takeaways

Maintainability of the writ petition was not examined; the disposal was ordered in the interest of justice, keeping in view the age of the proceedings stated to be still pending before respondent No.2.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.5191 of 2026 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; decided 16.04.2026): The petitioners' Revision Petition under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 was allowed by respondent No.3 (Director Consolidation of Holdings) on 05.10.2005 with remand to the Consolidation Officer, whose fresh order of 20.11.2006 was being executed when, according to the petitioners, a typographical mistake was noticed. A 2007 application under Section 56 of the Act read with Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking correction of the orders dated 05.10.2005 and 20.11.2006, was transferred in 2013 to respondent No.2 (Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala) and registered as Revenue Appeal No. 6/2016, which remained pending. Without examining the maintainability of the writ petition, and in view of the age of the pending proceedings, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No.2/Competent Authority to decide the pending proceedings in accordance with law within eight weeks; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.5191 of 2026 Decided on: 16.04.2026

¶3

_________________________________________________________________ Inderjit Singh and Anr. ....Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶6

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶7

1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional

¶10

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

In view of nature of relief claimed by the petitioners, matter has been heard at this stage without calling for reply from the respondents.

¶12

2. Petitioners filed a Revision Petition under Section

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (the Act in short) before respondent No.3 on 14.03.2004. Respondent No.3-the Director Consolidation of Holdings, allowed the petition on 05.10.2005 and remanded the case to the concerned Consolidation Officer. Fresh proceedings were initiated by the concerned Consolidation Officer and order was passed on 20.11.2006. While the aforesaid order was being executed i.e. by giving possession to the petitioners at the spot, according to the petitioners a typographical mistake was noticed in the order. The petitioner approached the concerned Consolidation Officer for correction of the typographical mistake, however, the Consolidation Officer stated that the mistake was in the order dated 05.10.2005, passed by respondent No.3 and it was required to be corrected by the said Authority. Petitioners approached respondent No.3 by moving application under Section 56 of the Act read with Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the year 2007 seeking necessary correction in the order dated 05.10.2005 and consequently in the order dated 20.11.2006.

¶16

In the year 2013, respondent No.3 transferred the

¶17

¶18

proceedings in the said application to respondent No.2-the Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala. The proceedings were registered as Revenue Appeal No. 6/2016. Petitioners’ grievance is that till date the Revenue Appeal No. 6/2016, arising out of Original Case No. 54 of 2004 (Inderjeet Singh and Ors Vs. Smt. Jagdish and Ors) is pending adjudication before respondent No.2. Petitioners seek direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending proceedings within a time bound schedule.

¶19

3. Without looking to the maintainability of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the age of the proceedings stated to be still pending before respondent No.2, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/Competent Authority to decide the pending proceedings under reference in accordance with law, within eight weeks from today.

¶20

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

¶21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶22

April 16, 2026 R.Atal

Inderjit Singh and Another aged about 78 years, Son of Shri Nasib Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderjit Singh and Another aged about 78 years, Son of Shri Nasib Singh v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dola Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Neeraj Kumar Vs Ld. Sub Divisional Magistrate Division Jawali and Others

Ishan Sharma and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Ajay Kumar and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Malti and Another Vs Abhishek Jain and Others

Indu Bala Vs the State of Hp and Others