Himachal Pradesh High Court
Yashpal Soga vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 29 June, 2021
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Satyen Vaidya
1 HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.396 of 2021 Decided on:29.06.2021 Yashpal Soga ..........Petitioner .
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ........Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. R.S. Dogra, Senior Additional Advocate General & Mr. Narender Singh r Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 4/State.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Aanandita Sharma, for respondents No.5 & 6.
(Through Video Conferencing) __________________________________________________________ Ravi Malimath, Judge (Oral).
The petitioner seeks for an order to direct respondents No.1 to 4 to evict private respondents No.5 & 6 from the lands in question. Pursuant to the eviction order dated 21.07.2017, passed by the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, it is contended that the order of eviction has not been implemented and the concerned respondents are sitting over the property.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2021 20:23:57 :::HCHP 2
2. The respondents, who put in appearance, have placed material before us to indicate that pursuant to the order of eviction dated 21.07.2017, an appeal was filed before the Collector, which came .
to be dismissed on 10.06.2021. Thereafter, a revision has been filed on 18.06.2021 before the Divisional Commissioner, which is pending consideration. In view of the present pandemic, the said matter has not been taken up for consideration. However, in view of the earlier orders of eviction, there was a threat to evict the private respondents No. 5 and 6 from the property. Hence, it is pleaded that until and unless the proceedings are concluded, no interference is called for.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that law should be allowed to take its course. Against the orders of eviction, the respondents have filed the statutory appeals and revisions before the concerned authorities. Until and unless the said proceedings are concluded, the question of interference by a Writ Court would not be appropriate.
4. In view of the fact that the pending revision has not yet been taken up for consideration and there is a threat of evicting the respondents No.5 & 6 from the property, we deem it just and necessary that until and unless the pending proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner are concluded, the private respondents No.5 & 6 shall continue to remain in possession of the property. That their possession ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2021 20:23:57 :::HCHP 3 shall be protected, subject to the orders to be passed by the Divisional Commissioner.
5. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that it will .
not be appropriate for us to interfere in this matter, in view of the pending proceedings before the statutory authorities. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions. Pending miscellaneous applications are disposed off.
( Ravi Malimath ) Judge.
( Satyen Vaidya )
June 29, 2021 Judge
(Yashwant/tarun)
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2021 20:23:57 :::HCHP