DUMNU RAM AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/4254/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010153842026

Filing Number

CWP/13263/2026

Filing Date

20-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/4254/2026

Registration Date

31-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Coram

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 28-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DUMNU RAM AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable)

    Adv. G R Palsra

  2. 2.Jai Dev,(Not Applicable)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.The Divisional Commissioner (Competent Authority)(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.The Consolidation Officer-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade,(Not Applicable)

  4. 4.Sh. Prakash Chand,(Not Applicable)

  5. 5.Sh. Beli Ram(Not Applicable)

  6. 6.Sh. Kapil Dev,(Not Applicable)

  7. 7.Sh. Devender Singh(Not Applicable)

  8. 8.Smt. Sarla Devi(Not Applicable)

  9. 9.Smt. Pushpa Devi(Not Applicable)

  10. 10.Smt. Lajja Devi,(Not Applicable)

  11. 11.Smt. Pitambari Devi,(Not Applicable)

  12. 12.Smt. Bimla Devi(Not Applicable)

  13. 13.Smt. Himachali(Not Applicable)

  14. 14.Smt. Navli(Not Applicable)

  15. 15.Sh. Kundan Lal,(Not Applicable)

  16. 16.Relu Ram(Not Applicable)

  17. 17.Smt. Shanti Devi(Not Applicable)

  18. 18.Smt. Bhima(Not Applicable)

  19. 19.Smt. Narvada(Not Applicable)

  20. 20.Smt. Khimi Devi(Not Applicable)

  21. 21.Sh Naresh Kumar(Not Applicable)

  22. 22.Smt. Neela Devi(Not Applicable)

  23. 23.Smt. Bhavna Devi(Not Applicable)

  24. 24.Smt. Satya Devi(Not Applicable)

  25. 25.Sh. Bhup Singh(Not Applicable)

  26. 26.Sh. Bhim Singh(Not Applicable)

  27. 27.Sh. Kesar Singh(Not Applicable)

  28. 28.Smt. Rama Devi(Not Applicable)

  29. 29.Smt. Asha Devi(Not Applicable)

  30. 30.Smt. Kaushalaya(Not Applicable)

  31. 31.Khem Chand(Not Applicable)

  32. 32.Smt. Himachali Devi(Not Applicable)

  33. 33.Smt. Nirmala Devi(Not Applicable)

  34. 34.Smt. Sandhya(Not Applicable)

  35. 35.Smt. Himri(Not Applicable)

  36. 36.Smt. Kamla Devi(Not Applicable)

  37. 37.Smt. Poonam Devi(Not Applicable)

  38. 38.Smt. Devki(Not Applicable)

  39. 39.Sh. Vinod(Not Applicable)

  40. 40.Smt. Ami Chand alias Omi Chand,(Not Applicable)

  41. 41.Smt. Jaiwanti Devi,(Not Applicable)

  42. 42.Smt. Kamla Devi,(Not Applicable)

  43. 43.Smt. Indra Devi,(Not Applicable)

  44. 44.Smt. Kala Devi,(Not Applicable)

  45. 45.Sh. Lalim Mohan(Not Applicable)

  46. 46.Sh. Krishan Chand(Not Applicable)

  47. 47.Sh. Dina Nath(Not Applicable)

  48. 48.Sh. Chander Mohan(Not Applicable)

  49. 49.Chander Kanta(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the Divisional Commissioner's dismissal of the petitioners' revision petition challenging a 2000 land partition order under the H.P. Holdings Act, 1971. The court found that earlier partition orders from 1991 and 2000 had become final as they were never separately challenged, the petitioners were present when the 2000 order was passed, and consolidation operations had closed in 2005, making the revision petition unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Office Objection

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/4254/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the Divisional Commissioner's dismissal of the petitioners' revision petition challenging a 2000 land partition order under the H.P. Holdings Act, 1971. The court found that earlier partition orders from 1991 and 2000 had become final as they were never separately challenged, the petitioners were present when the 2000 order was passed, and consolidation operations had closed in 2005, making the revision petition unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case