Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 7, 2025 To July 13, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 81 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 89

Nominal Index:

Gopal Chand v/s Ramesh Kumar & another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 81

Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 82

Rajesh Kumar Verma v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Madan Kumar v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 83

Deep Raj v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 84

Anil Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 85

State of H.P. & Ors. V/s Jai Ram.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 86

State of H.P. V/s Sukhan Devi (deceased) through LRs.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 87

Dalip Singh & another V/s Khatri Ram & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 88

Shirgul Filling Station V/s Kamal Sharma.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 89

Calling A Person 'Gunda', Alleging 'Gunda Raj' Without Justification Amounts To Defamation: HP High Court Convicts Chief Editor Of Newspaper

Case Title: Gopal Chand v/s Ramesh Kumar & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 81

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that calling a person “Gunda” and accusing him of disturbing the peace and spreading “Gundaraj” without any justification or basis amounts to defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Calling a person Gunda spreading Gundaraj, being a member of Shallow Theatre People without any justification, can be with the intent to harm the reputation of a person”.

Mere Use Of Encroached Forest Land Does Not Make Person Necessary Party In Eviction Proceedings Filed By Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 82

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that individuals who merely use a path or road constructed on a forest do not have locus standi to challenge an eviction order against the encroachers.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua: “Petitioners were not necessary parties to the lis before the Collector Forest. They have no locus standi for assailing the order passed by Collector Forest. Mere user of encroachment over the encroached/broken forest land would not make a person necessary party in the eviction proceedings filed by owner of the land against the culprits.”

HP HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Rules Of Judicial Promotion Exam, Says Judicial Officers Should've Known Consequences Of Participating Without Protest

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Verma v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Madan Kumar v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 83

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once Judicial officers had participated in a departmental exam for promotion, they were estopped from challenging the rules if they had accepted them when they chose to appear for the exam without any protest.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sandeep Sharma held: “Petitioners are estopped by their act and conduct from assailing the Regulation in question and on this sole ground, petitions deserve to be rejected particularly when the petitioners belong to class of Judicial Officers who are supposed and expected to be well versed with consequences of participating in the selection process without any protest and filing the petitions only after failing in qualifying the written examination.”

[Road Accident] “High Speed” Is A Relative Term, Accused Can't Be Held Guilty Solely Based On Speed: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Deep Raj v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 84

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that stating that a vehicle was being driven at “high speed” is not enough, by itself, to prove rashness or negligence. Speed is a relative term and must be explained with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on high speed alone without any further evidence that the accused was in breach of his duty to take care, which he had failed to do”.

State Cannot Transfer Police Officers Without Recommendation By Police Establishment Committee: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Anil Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 85

Reinforcing statutory safeguards for police transfers, the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the transfer of a Sub-Divisional Police Officer, holding that such transfers must be made on recommendations of the police establishment committee and the State Government can't bypass this mandatory procedure.

The court said that transfers shall be in accordance with Sections 12 and 56 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012 and should adhere to the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Prakash Singh and Others Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2006.

Procedural Lapses By Revenue Authorities Can't Defeat Substantive Rights Under Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules: High Court

Case Title: State of H.P. & Ors. V/s Jai Ram

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 86

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that procedural lapses by the revenue authority cannot defeat substantive rights vested in a party.

The court opined that due to procedural lapses of the revenue authorities in updating records, the petitioner, an Ex-army man, could not be denied his right over a forest land, allotted to him under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968.

'Adverse Possession Is A Heritable Right': Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Widow's Claim After Husband's Death

Case Title: State of H.P. V/s Sukhan Devi (deceased) through LRs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 87

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a wife's claim of adverse possession after her husband's death, holding that she is entitled to have her name recorded in the revenue records.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “Entries in revenue record reflect that unauthorized possession was very much in the knowledge of State since 1963 and for completion of 30 years of adverse possession without any interruption, interference, objection despite being in knowledge of the Revenue Agency, Gurdass during his life time had right to claim title on the basis of adverse possession and after his death, his adverse possession is heritable. Thus plaintiff is entitled to inherit the encroachment with claim of adverse possession by clubbing the period of possession of her husband since 1963.”

Local Commissioner Can't Be Appointed To Collect Fresh Evidence At Appellate Stage: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Dalip Singh & another V/s Khatri Ram & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 88

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Local Commissioner can't be appointed at the appellate stage merely to help a party gather fresh evidence which it failed to produce or challenge during the trial.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “By appointing a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the Court is not to be used as a facilitator for collection of evidence in favour or against any party”.

S.138 NI Act | When No Evidence Is Led To Prove Proprietorship, Complainant Can't Be Treated As Payee: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Shirgul Filling Station V/s Kamal Sharma

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 89

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a complainant fails to prove proprietorship of a sole proprietorship concern, they can't be treated as the payee or holder in due course under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that a mere authority letter issued after the complaint was filed does not constitute sufficient proof of authorisation.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Since in the present case no satisfactory evidence was produced to show that Complainant is the owner of Shirgul Filling Station, therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the complainant does not fall within the definition of payee and he was not entitled to file the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act.”