Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surinder Chauhan And Another vs . Sh. on 13 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
Surinder Chauhan and Another Vs. Sh.
.
Anupam Kashyap
COPC No.601 of 2025
13.08.2025 Present: Mr. Shrawan Dogra and Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Sr.
Advocates, with Ms. Aditi Rana, Advocate, for
the petitioners.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.
Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan,
Deputy Advocate General, for respondent.
By way of filing reply to the contempt petition,
Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, has attempted to justify the
delay in implementation of judgment dated 25.02.2025
passed by this Court in CWP No.13980 of 2024, titled
Surinder Chauhan and Another Vs. State of H.P. and
Others, whereby direction was issued to respondents to
construct the Ambulance Road, after removal of
encroachment made by one Mr. Naresh, within a period of
three moths, on the ground that Forest Rights Committee,
Village Ganni, Gram Panchayat Kiari, after having convened
meeting of Gram Sabha, has passed resolution (Annexure R-
1), stating therein that construction of road from Kiari via
Harijan Basti Ganni to Lower Bhuila may affect their forest
rights. However, having taken note of order dated
09.01.2025 passed by this Court in writ petition, detailed
hereinabove, wherein factum with regard to passing of
resolution by Forest Committee of village, detailed
hereinabove, was never brought to the notice of this Court,
rather, this Court was informed that as per demarcation
.
report of Tehsildar, Kotkhai, Khasra Nos.123, 132, 134/1
and 139, kita 04 area measuring 0-06-02 hectare, is in the
ownership of Government and same have been not
encroached, except Khasra No.134/1, which is encroached
by one Mr. Naresh son of Mr. Mela Ram. This Court was also
informed that proceedings under Section 163 of H.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1954, stand initiated against afore Mr. Naresh.
2. Since at the time of passing of order dated
09.01.2025, learned Senior Counsel representing the
petitioners assured that petitioners would persuade above
named Mr. Naresh to remove the encroachment, this Court
adjourned the matter to 25.02.2025, on which date, this
Court came to be apprised that Mr. Naresh has been
persuaded to remove the encroachment, enabling
respondents to construct the Ambulance Road.
3. Careful perusal of judgment dated 25.02.2025
reveals that this Court having taken note of affidavit filed by
the petitioners, stating therein that encroachment made by
Mr. Naresh stand removed, directed respondents to complete
the work of Ambulance Road within a period of three
months.
4. Now for the first time, that too on very flimsy
and unreasonable grounds, attempt has been made by
respondent to defeat the mandate contained in the
judgment, alleged to have been violated.
5. Once this Court had directed respondents to
.
construct the Ambulance Road over the Khasra numbers,
detailed hereinabove, which are admittedly owned and
possessed by the Government, there was otherwise no
occasion, if any, for respondent to pay any heed to
representation, if any, filed by the Forest Rights Committee,
bare reading of which otherwise suggests that same has
been filed by some vested interests, who do not want Road to
be constructed for public at large.
6. Moreover, this Court is of the view that in the
event of receipt of representation, as detailed hereinabove,
appropriate course, if any, available for respondent was to
approach this Court for clarification, but in no circumstance,
he could delay the implementation on the ground of protest
raised by residents of village Ganni.
7. If the resolution, allegedly sent by residents of
village Ganni, is perused in its entirety, it nowhere suggests
that land, over which Ambulance Road is proposed, belongs
to them, rather, the same belongs to the Government and on
account of construction of Ambulance Road, residents of
village Ganni would also be benefited.
8. As far as protection of natural resources is
concerned, same can be taken care of by the respondent
while constructing the road by making arrangement of
proper drainage. Though this Court is of the view that it is a
fit case where respondent needs to be dealt with in
accordance with law, but on the vehement request of learned
.
Deputy Advocate General, one more opportunity of two
weeks, as prayed for, is granted to respondent to comply
with the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have
been violated, in its letter and spirit, failing which, he would
remain present in Court on the next date of hearing to
explain that why Charge, for his having wilfully and
intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the
judgment, alleged to have been violated, be not framed
against him.
List on 08.09.2025.
August 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(Rajeev Raturi) Judge
