Himachal Pradesh High Court
Unknown vs Sanjeev Chauhan V. Union Of India on 6 September, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
Sanjeev Chauhan v. Union of India
.
CWP No. 1274 of 2019
06.9.2023 Present: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Karun Negi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Senior Panel Counsel, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General, for the State.
Mr. Pawan K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent
No.4.
Pursuant to order dated 9.8.2023, Mr. Ankit
Verma, Deputy General Manager, an authorized person of
respondent No.4 M/s AIRIF Engineers Pvt. Ltd, has come
present. He has also filed compliance affidavit, stating therein
that pursuant to direction issued by this court from time to
time, work on the site is in progress. He further states that
slope protection from Ch. 125+660 to 125+770 (RHS) has
already been provided with Breast Wall of Height upto 5 meters.
It has been further stated that slop protection work is under
progress from Ch. 125+770 to 125+780 (RHS) as Excavation
and PCC work has been completed. Cladding concrete of 2nd
lift has been done upto 2 meters and all out efforts are being
made to complete the work as early as possible. Most
importantly, it has been stated in the affidavit that additional
height requires geographical mapping report alongwith
geotechnical investigation data and for that purpose,
communication has been made to NHAI. Aforesaid
representative of respondent No.4 stated that all out efforts are
being made to protect the property of the petitioners.
Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for NHAI stated that matter has been already taken
with the authorities for giving permission to make passage to
the house of the petitioners.
.
Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners while refuting the aforesaid
submissions made by the Contractor and NHAI vehemently
argued that not much work has been done on the spot, as a
result of which house of the petitioners can come down any
time. He further stated that keeping in view the vertical cutting
done by NHAI, while constructing the road, it is not easy or may
not be possible to save the house of the petitioners and as such,
this Court may direct NHAI to acquire the property. To
substantiate his aforesaid claim, he also invited attention of this
Court to the judgment dated 27.7.2023, passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in CWP No. 910 of 2019, titled Reena v.
The Union of India and Ors, wherein in similar circumstances,
Division Bench of this Court directed the NHAI to acquire the
property.
Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned senior counsel while
undertaking before this Court that remaining work shall be
completed expeditiously, also stated that he will bring the
aforesaid judgment to the notice of the NHAI. Respondent No.4
is directed to ensure that retaining wall, which is within the
scope of its contract, may be completed, expeditiously,
preferably, within 30 working days, failing which this court
would be constrained to initiate contempt proceeigns agasint
respondent No.4 as well as NHAI. List on 6.11.2023, on which
date, affidavit of compliance shall be placed on record by
respondent No.4 and aforesaid representative of respondent
No.4 shall also remain present in the Court.
September 6, 2023 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
