Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1415 (HP)

Deep Ram v. State Of Hp

2018-07-31

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. (Oral) - Petitioners, by the medium of this petition, have prayed for the following reliefs. "(i) To direct the respondent No. 4 to decide the application i.e. Annexure P5, filed by the petitioner No. 1 and his father before the respondent No. 4 for correction of revenue entires (ii) To direct the respondent No. 4 to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue entries/records, the respect of Muhal Bagain and DPF Aahar, Tehsil Kumarsain, Disrict Shimla HP in accordance with law. (iii) To direct the respondent No. 4, 5 , 6 to settle the boundary dispute between the DPF Aahar and Muhal Bagain, in accordance with law. (iv) To direct the respondents not to take any action against the petitioners for their eviction till the application for correction of revenue entires/records pending before the respondent No. 3 is finally decided, in accordance with law" 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners'' application for correction of revenue entries (Annexure P5) is pending before the Settlement officer, Shimla Division, Shimla (respondent No.4). He submits that the petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to respondent No.4 to consider and decide the petitioner''s application within a time bound manner. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents has no objection to the same. 4. No other point is urged. 5. Leaving all questions of law open, on this short ground, as prayed for, petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner''s application, expeditiously, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 6. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioners, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to revive the present petition, if need so arises subsequently. 7. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.