CWP/18961/2026 on 26 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18961 of 2026

Date of Decision: 26.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Manish Kumar & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Union of India and Ors.

…....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Ms. Sangeeta Vasudeva, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for Union of India.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.

Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.R. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4 to

8. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.9. ___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the state of Rajasthan may please be directed to restore the murabbaNo.185/57 in Chak No.27MD Tehsil Anupgarh in district Srigangnagar, Rajasthan, failing which the respondent High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:37:20 :::CIS

- 2 - State of Rajasthan and respondent No.8 i.e. Chairman BBMB 19-B, Madhya marg HLDC complex Industrial area, Phase-I Chandigarh-16002 may be directed to give the financial compensation to the petitioner to the tune of 5 crores for his non-settlement for the last 46 years as well as the cost of the land at sriganganagar on which he was originally supposed to be settled as directed by the high power committees in its meeting held on 6-7th October 2017.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that their clients would be satisfied in case they are permitted to make a representation clearly setting out therein their grievances. The prayer being innocuous is allowed.

3. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition by permitting the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents and in the event of such representation being made within three weeks from today, this Court has no reason to doubt that the same shall be considered sympathetically by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the receipt of such representation. Ordered accordingly.

4. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

October 26, 2026

(Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)

Judge

High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:37:20 :::CIS