_____________________________________________________________________ vs Onkar Chand Sharma & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1122 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_____________________________________________________________________ vs Onkar Chand Sharma & Ors on 3 June, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               COPC No.623 of 2024
                                       Date of Decision: 03.06.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Ram Swaroop & Ors.                                      .........Petitioners
                                       Versus
Onkar Chand Sharma & Ors.                              .......Respondents

Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioners:      Mr. J.L.Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate, with Ms.
                          Dhanvanti, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan
                     Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma,
                     Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi
                     Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
                     respondents-State.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

While placing on record communication dated 03.06.2025,

issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer, Arki Division, HP

PWD, Arki, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional

Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment,

alleged to have been violated, stands duly complied with. He states

that Government vide letter 02.06.2025 has conveyed its approval to

initiate steps for acquisition of land subject to any legal remedy

available.

2. Though no specific time frame has been given in the

aforesaid communication with regard to initiation of steps for

acquisition of land in terms of mandate contained in the judgment

alleged to have been violated, but learned Additional Advocate General

fairly states that needful, in terms of direction contained in the

judgment, shall be done expeditiously, preferably within a period of

four weeks.

3. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in

the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same are disposed of.

Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Liberty is reserved

to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court

of law qua the surviving grievance, if any. Pending applications, if any,

stand disposed of.

June 03, 2025                                   (Sandeep Sharma),
     (Sunil)                                         Judge