IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 185 of 2007. Decided on: 16.12.2011. Mahesh Kumar Kaundal S/o late Sh. Labhu Ram, R/o Kaundal Niwas, Upper Chakker, Shimla 171 005. .…Petitioner. Versus 1. Settlement Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Shimla, Division, Shimla, HP; 2. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary (Local Self Government), Government of H.P., Shimla 171 002; 3. Municipal Corporation, Shimla, through its Commissioner, Shimla. … Respondents. ______________________________________________________________ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the respondent No.2, whereby he has exceeded his jurisdiction in reducing the area of his land in khasra No. 1493/97 (old 97/1) from 144.55 sq. mt. to 132.55 sq. mt. in which he has raised his construction of his house after getting the plan approved from the Municipal Corporation and ordered to enter the said area of 12.10 sq. mt. in the ownership of the State Government and the possession of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla without there being any claim made by them; with a prayer to call for the entire records of the case and to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order in exercise of its supervisory power of superintendence by this Hon’ble Court and to set aside the impugned order in view of the grounds set out in the petition hereinafter in this petition. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner. : Mr. Satyan Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.3. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) CMP No. 529 of 2011. Replies not to be filed. Heard. In view of no contest, the application is allowed in view of the grounds stated therein. Consequently, order dated 29.10.2010, whereby the main petition being CMPMO No. 185 of 2007 was dismissed in default is recalled and the petition is restored for disposal on merits. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 CMPMO No. 185 of 2007. Amended memo of parties be filed during the course of the day and the same be kept at the proper place. 2. As prayed for, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty reserved to seek his remedy, if any, in accordance with law before the appropriate Court/Forum. However, while doing so, the rigours of the law of limitation would not come in his way, as he has been prosecuting the matter before this Court, throughout on the mistaken belief that this Court has jurisdiction in the matter. 3. The petition stands disposed of. (V.K. Sharma), Judge. 16th December, 2011. (Krn Guleria)