The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to maintain status quo over land claimed to belong to Thakur Dwara Shri Narsingh Ji Mandir in Solan district and ensure that no development activity is carried out on the disputed property.

The Court placed personal responsibility on the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Nalagarh, and other concerned officials to ensure compliance, warning that contempt proceedings would be initiated against them in the event of non-compliance.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi stated that: “In the meantime, the State shall ensure that status quo regarding land in question is maintained and there is no development activity carried out on it. It is the personal responsibility of the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Nalagarh, and official respondents No. 6 and 7 to ensure compliance, failing which contempt proceedings shall be initiated against the said officers”.

Background:

The case concerns a dispute over 41 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land in Mauza Dadi Bhola, Solan district, claimed to belong to the deity of Thakur Dwara Shri Narsingh Ji Mandir. An exchange deed was executed in favour of Kuldeep Kaur on July 24, 2017, and a mutation was initially sanctioned in her favour before being cancelled on April 16, 2018, on the ground that the land belonged to the temple.

Kuldeep Kaur subsequently filed a civil suit challenging the cancellation, which was decreed on October 26, 2024. The petitioners approached the High Court questioning the decree and pointing out that a subsequent mutation was sanctioned on April 28, 2025, with the disputed land proposed for a residential town-planning layout.

The High Court directed the State authorities to maintain status quo over the disputed land and ensure that no development activity takes place on it pending further proceedings. It placed personal responsibility on the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, the SDM, Nalagarh, and official respondents Nos. 6 and 7 to ensure compliance, warning that contempt proceedings would follow in case of non-compliance.

The Court also directed that the record of the underlying civil suit be called for and that the relevant documents be placed on record in duly translated form.

Notice was issued to respondents Nos. 12 to 19, with the matter listed for December 10, 2026.