Panna Lal vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 12735 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Panna Lal vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 30 September, 2024

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11095 of 2024 Date of decision: 30.09.2024

.

    Panna Lal.                                                            ...Petitioner.





                                    Versus
    State of H.P. & Ors.                                             ...Respondents.





    Coram:

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner : Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for

respondents No.1 to 4-State.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

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

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of

respondents No.1 to 4. In view of the nature of the grievance

raised by the petitioner and the order being passed in this

petition, notice of this petition is not required to be issued to

respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner's grievance is related to blockage of

passage/encroachment allegedly made by respondent No.5

over the portion of Government land. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that on 17.09.2020, the residents of the

area in village Dadoh, Post Office Upper Behli, Tehsil

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

Sundernagar, District Mandi (H.P.), made a complaint to

respondent No.2, regarding the encroachment made by

.

respondent No.5 over the Government land. In the aforesaid

Government land, there was a path in existence to enable the

villagers to reach Village, School, Anganwadi etc. That path

was adjoining to the house of respondent No.5. The

complaint was that respondent No.5 had encroached the

path, making it difficult for the villagers to cross the path for

accessing Village, School and Anganwadi etc. The petitioner

further submits that the complaint was investigated and the

Patwari in terms of his report had found the encroachment

by respondent No.5 over the Government land, however, the

encroachment was not removed and the path still remains

obstructive.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his

complaint was closed on 15.05.2023 without addressing the

grievances. That the petitioner on 12.12.2023 had again

made a complaint to respondent No.3-Sub-Divisional Officer

(Civil), Sundernagar, District Mandi, regarding removing the

encroachment from Government land, however, nothing

concrete has been done in the matter.

4. In view of the grievances raised in the petition, let

respondents No.2 to 4 to look into the complaint of the

.

petitioner dated 12.12.2023, Annexure P-6 and take

appropriate action thereupon in accordance with law, within

a period of two months from today. The decision so arrived

be also communicated to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this petition to stand disposed of so

also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 30 September, 2024 th Judge (Pardeep)