CWP/3245/2016 on 29 December 2016

1. CWP No.3245 of 2016

Piar Chand

..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others

. Respondents

2. CWP No.3246 of 2016

Uttam Chand

..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others

. Respondents

3. CWP No.3247 of 2016

Sukh Lal

..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others

. Respondents

4. CWP No.3248 of 2016

Piar Singh

..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others

. Respondents

5. CWP No.3249 of 2016

Piar Singh

..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others

. Respondents

6. CWP No.3250 of 2016

Pano Devi @ Bato Devi

..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others

. Respondents

7. CWP No.3251 of 2016

Partap Chand

..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others

. Respondents

8. CWP No.3252 of 2016

Janak Raj

..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others

. Respondents

9. CWP No.3256 of 2016

Subhash Chand

..Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

. Respondents

10. CWP No.3257 of 2016

Churu Ram

..Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

. Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner(s): Mr.Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva and Ms.Rachana Sharma, Advocates, for the respective petitioners.

For the respondents: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr.Anup Rattan, Mr.Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh.

Mr.Ashok Sharma, ASGI, with Mr.Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, for the Union of India.

Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Advocate, for the State of Rajasthan.. ________________________________________________________________________________

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)

Learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that similar matters were considered by this Court in a batch of cases, lead case of which is CWP No.1540 of 2013, titled Bakshi

Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 6th November, 2013 and prayed that these writ petitions be disposed of in terms of the judgment (supra). Their statements are taken on record.

2. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment, referred to above, at pages 25 and 26, herein:- “2. It is not in dispute that after the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan & Another versus Union of India & Others, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 749, a high power committee has been constituted to look into the grievance of the petitioners and similar situate persons. This committee is still functional.

Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make representation(s) before the high power committee. The committee shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and similar situate persons within a period of six months after receipt of the representation(s). The committee shall also be guided by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.492 of 2007, titled as “Ashwani Kumar V. Union of India”, decided on 29.3.2011, against which an SLP was preferred which was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2.1.2013. It is made clear that the limitation/delay shall not come in the way of the petitioner(s). It is also made clear that the high power committee shall decide the cases individually and pass speaking/detailed order(s), strictly as per the averments made in the representation(s). It is further clarified that if the land is available in Sriganganagar (reserved area), this aspect shall also be taken into consideration. The respondent- State is also directed to issue the eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioners in CWPs No. 11070 of 2011-G and 1158 of 2013 in order to enable them to present their cases before the high power committee.”

3. It is also stated that the judgment, referred to above, was also followed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in SLP(C) No.21904 of 2012, titled State of Rajasthan & another vs. Ashwani Kumar Sharma & others, decided on 2nd January, 2013 and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

4. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of these writ petitions in terms of the judgment made by the learned Single Judge (supra) with liberty to the writ petitioners to file representation(s) within eight weeks before the High Power Committee. The said Committee is directed to decide the same within three months thereafter.

5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any.

Copy dasti.

( Mansoor Ahmad Mir )

Chief Justice

December 29, 2016 ( Sandeep Sharma ) (tilak/vt)

Judge