STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) AG vs Prem Lal AND ANR(Not Applicable) Advocate - Chander Narayan Singh, ,Nidhi Singh — RP/38/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 114. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010766032025

e-Filing Number

03-12-2025

Filing Number

RP/64991/2025

Filing Date

06-Dec-2025

Registration No

RP/38/2026

Registration Date

04-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 114

Petitioner(s)

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

  2. 2.The Deputy Commissioner(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Rajat Chauhan

  3. 3.The Land Acquisition Colllector HPPWD(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Rajat Chauhan

  4. 4.Executive Engineer HPPWD(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Rajat Chauhan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Prem Lal AND ANR(Not Applicable) Advocate - Chander Narayan Singh, ,Nidhi Singh

  2. 2.Sh Bhim Singh(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Chander Narayan Singh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

    Case Summary: RP/38/2026 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh modified its 2024 judgment directing land acquisition by clarifying which parcels must be acquired. The State disputed whether respondents' Khasra Nos. 166 and 169 were both used for road construction (respondents' claim) or only Khasra No. 166 (State's claim). The court directed revenue authorities to conduct a spot verification to determine actual land utilization, with acquisition proceedings to follow based on findings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. RP/38/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RP/38/2026 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh modified its 2024 judgment directing land acquisition by clarifying which parcels must be acquired. The State disputed whether respondents' Khasra Nos. 166 and 169 were both used for road construction (respondents' claim) or only Khasra No. 166 (State's claim). The court directed revenue authorities to conduct a spot verification to determine actual land utilization, with acquisition proceedings to follow based on findings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case