Raj Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

2. One Shri Nitin Karol, stated to be a tenant under respondents No. 3-5, filed complaint on 09.07.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, H.P. highlighting violation of provisions of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy & Land Reforms Act (in short, the Act) by the aforesaid respondents in relation to building known as 120, Lower Bazar, Shimla built on Khasra No. 756, measuring 22.80 Sq. meters. The matter was taken to its

¶14

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

¶15

2

¶16

logical conclusion. The District Collector, Shimla passed an order on 02.09.2015 holding that only land underneath the aforesaid building shall stand vested in the State government but not the built up structure thereby giving benefit of Section 118(2) (dd) of the Act to the aforesaid respondents. Respondents No.3-7 did not assail the order dated 02.09.2015. However, Shri Nitin Karol instituted CWP No.4597/2015 against the order dated 02.09.2015 wherein status-quo order was passed on 07.02.2015. Shri Nitin Karol withdrew the writ petition on 19.08.2023. The present petitioner is also a tenant of the premises owned by respondents No. 3-5, though according to the respondents, petitioner is tenant in a shop under the name and style of Rama Store in building 114, Lower Bazar, Shimla and not in the premises in question i.e. 120, Lower Bazar, Shimla. Be that as it may. In essence, the present petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 02.09.2015 passed by the District Collector, Shimla whereby only the land underneath building known as 120, Lower Bazar, Shimla, built on Khasra No.756, measuring 22.80 Sq. meters was ordered to be vested in the State government excluding the built up structure. The operative part of the order passed by the District Collector, Shimla is as under:-

¶17

3

¶18

“For the reasons discussed above, only built up shops and house known as 120, Lower Bazar, Shimla built on the land comprised in Khasra No.756, area of land measuring 22.80 Sq. meters, situated at Mohal Bazar, Ward Bara Shimla, Tehsil Shimla (Urban), District Shimla, H.P. shall be mutated in the name of respondents No. 1 and 2 excluding the land underneath the said building. The entire land underneath the built up structure built on Khasra No.756 above is ordered to be vested in the State. Further, Shri Joginder Singh, respondent No.1 could have acquired 1/4^th share in land and building built on Khasra No.664, situated at Bazar Ward Bara, Shimla. Smt. Barinder Kaur respondent No.2 above could have only purchased 7/12 share of built up structure of the building built on said Khasra No.664 above. Smt. Barinder Kaur, respondent could only purchase 2/5 share in land comprised in Khasra No.664 above in view of Section 118 Sub-Section 2 Clause (dd) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997. Land 11/60 share measuring 7-90 sq. mtrs. out of Khasra No.664 above of Smt. Barinder Kaur, respondent No.2 shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances except the built up structure built thereon. Further, action be taken accordingly in the matter.”

¶19

3. Section 118 of the Act provides for remedy of

¶20

appeal to the aggrieved person against the order of the District Collector. Petitioner has not availed the remedy provided under the statute against the impugned order that was passed on 02.09.2015 but chose to assail the same by way of this writ petition filed on 10.10.2023. The relief in the nature claimed for by the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances, in view of provisions of Section 118 of the Act, cannot be allowed to him at this

¶21

4

¶22

stage in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as may be available to him in law for the redressal of his grievances. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶23

July 02, 2026 yogesh

¶24

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Raj Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Pradeep Kumar Vs Ashish Kumar Kohli

Gopal Singh Verma Vs State of Hp and Another

Nathu Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

M/S Milestone Gears Pvt. Ltd. Unit-Viii Vs Amar Singh Bhatia and Another

Yagya Dev and Others Vs National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd. and Others