Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jagmohan Bedi Son Of Late Shri ... vs Union Of on 27 December, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 27th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JUDGE
.
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5107 OF 2020
Between:-
1. JAGMOHAN BEDI SON OF LATE SHRI MANOHAR LAL BEDI
2. MANMOHAN BEDI SON OF LATE SHRI MANOHAR LAL BEDI
3. HARITA BEDI DAUGHTER OF LATE SHRI MANOHAR LAL
BEDI,
ALL THE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RANI
TAL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P. PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.10651, NABI KARIM,
JHANDEWALA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110055.
...PETITIONERS
(BY MR. RAJ KUMAR NEGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, SHARMSHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW
DELHI.
2. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RELIEF &
REHABILITATION (R & R) RAJA-KA-TALAB, TEHSIL
NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
4. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR.
5. ADDITIONAL COLONIZATION COMMISSIONER,
GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, BIKANER.
6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT
SRIGANGANAGAR, RAJASTHAN.
7. CHAIRMAN, BBMB 19-B, MADHYA MARG HLDC
COMPLEX INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I, CHANDIGARH-
16002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. BALRAM SHARMA, ASGI, FOR R-1.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:29:36 :::CIS
2
BY MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL, MR.
RAJINDER DOGRA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL,
MR. VINOD THAKUR, MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS AND MR.
HIMANSHU MISRA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL, FOR
R-2 AND R-3)
.
MR. Y.W. CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R-4 TO R-6)
MR. N.K. SOOD, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. AMAN SOOD,
ADVOCATE, FOR R-7).
1
WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following :
ORDER
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.
2. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make
representation 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 the 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. 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
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes.
further the clarified that if land is available Sriganganagar (reserved
area), this aspect shall in also be taken into consideration.
3. With these observations, the present petition is disposed
.
of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
( Chander Bhusan Barowalia )
Judge
27th December, 2021
(CS)
