Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/18157/2026 on 13 October 2026
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.18157 of 2026
Date of Decision: 13.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Shivani ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Vandana Misra, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.3. __________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Hitesh Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that despite repeated requests, no compensation has been paid qua the borewell and water tank, which was situated on the land used by respondent No.2-NHAI for construction of National Highway.
2. It is the admitted case of the parties that petitioner has already received compensation for the land and structure, which came to be acquired/demolished on account of construction of NH21-A (Pinjore Nalagarh).
3. Now precise grouse of the petitioner is that besides there being structure, there was one borewell and water tank, qua which, neither assessment of damage has been made nor compensation has been paid.
4. Though reply on behalf of respondent No.2-NHAI is stated to have been filed, but is not on record, however, having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to go through the reply filed by respondent No. 2, which is otherwise represented by Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.
5. Having taken note of the fact that representations dated 16.1.2024, 22.10.2024, 26.11.2024 and 24.1.2025 filed by the petitioner are pending consideration before respondent No. 3-CALA, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the same with direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the pending representations, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
October 13, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge