CWP/9030/2022 of ASHOK KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS on 30 December 2022

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 SolicitorGeneral of India, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned Deputy AdvocateGeneral, 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 onbehalf of the respective respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of thefollowing substantive relief:- “That writ in the nature or mandamus may kindly beissued to restore the allotment of the petitionerimmediately or the allotment of the petitioner maybe exchanged with land having irrigation water andall the facilities required for cultivation and humanhabitation failing which the respondent State ofRajasthan and respondent State of Rajasthan andrespondent No. 7 i.e. Chairman, BBMB 19-B, MadhyaMarg, HLDC Complex Industrial Area, Phase-I, CHD16002 may be directed to give the financialcompensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5crores for his non-settlement for the last 46 years aswell as the cost of the land at Sriganganagar onwhich he was originally supposed to be settled asdirected by the high power committees in its meetingheld on 6-7[th] October, 2017 in the interest of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that theissue, raised in the instant petition, is squarely covered by theorder passed by Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWPNo. 3525 of 2022, case titled Mohan Singh Pathania Vs. Union ofIndia and others, decided on 3.6.2022. He further states that thepetitioner would be satisfied if an order is passed on the samelines, as directed in para No. 6 of the aforesaid order.

4. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate todispose of the petition with a direction to respondent No.3 toissue eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner, verifyingtherein factum with regard to acquisition of land of the father ofthe petitioner, Sh. Mangtu Ram, for construction of Pong Damand in case, it is certified that the land of petitioner’s father wasacquired, the eligibility certificate be issued expeditiously,preferably within a period of four weeks. After issuance ofeligibility certificate, if any, case of the petitioner berecommended to the High Power Committee recommendingtherein the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner. Onreceipt of recommendations, if any, from the State of HimachalPradesh, the Committee is directed to consider and decide thecase of the petitioner for allotment of land in the State ofRajasthan within a period of two months from the date ofrecommendation.

5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, soalso pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Virender Singh)

Judge