Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/16801/2026 of SHEELA DEVI Vs UOI AND OTHERS on 25 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16801 of 2026 Date of Decision: 25.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sheela Devi …….Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.16801 of 2026 Date of Decision: 25.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sheela Devi
…….Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
… Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel, for the respondents-UOI.
Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.2.
Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents- State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 28.07.2026 (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner, in a time bound manner.
2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by their respective counsel.
3. Precisely, the grouse of the petition, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Somesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though land as well as structure existing thereupon has been acquired by National Highways Authority of India for construction of National Highway-5, but till date she has not been paid compensation qua the entire property, which came to be used for construction of National Highway.
4. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has already filed representation before competent authority, which is pending consideration, there appears to be no justification for this court to adjudicate the case on its merits and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the pending representation dated 28.07.2026 (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 25, 2026 (Sunil)