Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/9030/2022 on 30 December 2022
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. 9030 of 2022
Decided on: 30.12.2022 Ashok Kumar
…Petitioner Versus Union of India & & Ors.
…Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. S. D. Vasudeva, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, Dy. SGI, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Addl. A.Gs., Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondent-State. Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 to 6. Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan and Mr. Kul Bhushan 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
Khajuria, Advocates, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- “That writ in the nature or mandamus may kindly be issued to restore the allotment of the petitioner immediately or the allotment of the petitioner may be exchanged with land having irrigation water and all the facilities required for cultivation and human habitation failing which the respondent State of Rajasthan and respondent State of Rajasthan and respondent No. 7 i.e. Chairman, BBMB 19-B, Madhya Marg, HLDC Complex Industrial Area, Phase-I, CHD 16002 may be directed to give the financial compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 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 in the interest of justice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue, raised in the instant petition, is squarely covered by the order passed by Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP No. 3525 of 2022, case titled Mohan Singh Pathania Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 3.6.2022. He further states that the petitioner would be satisfied if an order is passed on the same lines, as directed in para No. 6 of the aforesaid order.
4. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to issue eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner, verifying therein factum with regard to acquisition of land of the father of the petitioner, Sh. Mangtu Ram, for construction of Pong Dam and in case, it is certified that the land of petitioner’s father was acquired, the eligibility certificate be issued expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. After issuance of eligibility certificate, if any, case of the petitioner be recommended to the High Power Committee recommending therein the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner. On receipt of recommendations, if any, from the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Committee is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for allotment of land in the State of Rajasthan within a period of two months from the date of recommendation.
5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge (Virender Singh) 30th December, 2022
Judge (sanjeev)