Abhi Singh Jamwal Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Abhi Singh Jamwal Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.5/competent authority to pass an order deciding the petitioner's case/representation in accordance with law within two weeks; liberty to petitioner to seek appropriate remedy based upon the order to be passed by respondent No.5; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to respondent No.6 to incorporate, restore and give effect to the mutation and corresponding revenue entries in favour of the petitioner in respect of land comprised in Old Khasra No.155/1, new Khasra No.397/1, measuring 4 Kanals & 18 Marlas, situated at Mohal Sidhpur, Mouza Khanyara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, in the latest jamabandi and connected revenue records. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent No.5/competent authority to pass an order deciding the case/representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within two weeks.

Key takeaways

It shall be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of his grievances based upon the order to be passed by respondent No.5.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Abhi Singh Jamwal v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.8426 of 2026 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; decided 15.07.2026). The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to respondent No.6 to incorporate, restore and give effect to the mutation and corresponding revenue entries in his favour for land comprised in Old Khasra No.155/1, new Khasra No.397/1, measuring 4 Kanals & 18 Marlas, situated at Mohal Sidhpur, Mouza Khanyara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, in the latest jamabandi and connected revenue records. Pursuant to the Court's order dated 25.05.2026, the Deputy Advocate General placed on record instructions dated 04.06.2026 of the SDO (Civil), Dharamshala, along with the factual report dated 03.06.2026 of the Tehsildar Dharamshala, conveying that no revenue record supported the petitioner's case. In view of that stand, learned counsel for the petitioner confined the prayer to a direction to decide the petitioner's pending representation. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.5/competent authority to pass an order deciding the case/representation in accordance with law within two weeks, leaving the petitioner free to seek appropriate remedy on the basis of the order so passed; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, were also disposed of. No decision was rendered on the merits of the mutation claim and no statute or precedent was cited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.8426 of 2026

Decided on: 15^th July, 2026

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abhi Singh Jamwal …..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 6.

Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.7.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus to respondent No.6 to incorporate, restore & give effect to the mutation and corresponding revenue entries in favour of the petitioner with respect to the land comprised in Old Khasra No.155/1, new Khasra No.397/1, measuring 4 Kanals & 18 Marlas, situated at Mohal Sidhpur, Mouza Khanyara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District

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

2

Kangra in the latest jamabandi and all connected revenue records.

2. Pursuant to the order passed in this writ petition on 25.05.2026, learned Deputy Advocate General had placed on record detailed instructions dated 04.06.2026 from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dharamshala, District Kangra, conveying that no revenue record is there in the office of the concerned revenue department supporting the case of the petitioner, the existence of Khasra No.397/1 or evidencing any allotment, transfer or conferment of rights in respect thereof. The office instructions are also accompanied with a comprehensive factual report dated 03.06.2026 from the office of the Tehsildar Dharamshala, District Kangra.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the stand taken by the respondents, as conveyed in the office instructions, the petitioner would be required to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of his grievances, however, there is no formal order passed by the respondents on the representation of the petitioner, therefore, the respondents be directed to decide the case of

3

the petitioner to enable him to take appropriate recourse in

law.

4. Taking note of above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.5/competent authority to pass an order deciding the case/representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within two weeks from today.

It shall be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of his grievances based upon the order to be passed by respondent No.5.

With these observations, the writ petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

July 15, 2026 Mukesh