Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 07.05.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 7 May, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:12867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3416 of 2025
Decided on: 07.05.2025
Sh. Tek Chand ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate
General, for the respondents-State.
Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondents No.2 and 6.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
With the consent of the parties the petition is being
disposed of at this stage itself.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"A. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent
Committee to take immediate steps to restore the
remaining land of the Petitioner and further pay the
adequate compensation to the Petitioner.
B. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent
Committee to determine the extent of damage so caused to
the Petitioner and accordingly pay the compensation for
which Petitioner is entitled in accordance with law."
3. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the petitioner
earlier also approached this Court, praying for same relied by way of
CWP No.2472 of 2019, titled as Tek Chand Versus State of Himachal
Pradesh & Others, which was decided by this Court on 30.07.2021,
in the following terms:-
"Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:12867
similar situation a Committee has been formed by the
respondents/State in terms of Annexure R-2/1 and that in
case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he is also
entitled to make a claim therein.
2. Petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner may be
permitted to make a claim therein in order to seek relief
from the Committee. Hence, she pleads that the petition
may be dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid
liberty. The request is accepted. The petition is dismissed
as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the petitioner to
approach the concerned Committee for necessary relief(s).
Pending miscellaneous application is disposed off
accordingly."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner before the
Committee concerned, however, till date nothing has been done by
the Committee in this regard. Learned Deputy Advocate General
assures the Court that the application filed by the petitioner qua
compensation for the alleged loss caused to their property shall be
dealt with by the Committee in accordance with its jurisdiction and
appropriate order thereupon after hearing all the stake holders shall
be passed within eight weeks from today. His statement is taken on
record.
5. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
May 07, 2025
(Rishi)
