CWP/8979/2022 on 29 December 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8979 of 2022. Date of decision: 29.12.2022. Jaswant Singh

…..Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …..Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Mr. J.S.Guleria, Deputy Advocate Generals and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.

Yashwardhan

Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.7. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

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 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 reliefs:- “i) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to issue the eligibility certificate to the family of the petitioner. ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the State of Rajasthan may please be directed to allot land in district Sriganganagar i.e. Tehsil Anupgarh, Tehsil Gharsana or Tehsil Srivijaynagar or in Jetsar Farm or allot fully commandable Murabba to the petitioner in Phase-I of District Sriganganagar or out of 1188 cases of encroachments, failing which the respondent 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.”

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 father of the petitioner, 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 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 (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 29th December, 2022. (krt)