Dismissed

Roop Lal v. State of H.P

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Aug 2014CWP/6424/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this consequential order following a previous direction, the Supreme Court of ICJ dismissed the petitioner's writ petition as the grievance regarding non-payment of land acquisition compensation for Khasra No. 347/251 was redressed. Enhanced compensation was deposited, and the petitioner was directed to release the sum. The release was made subject to the ongoing outcome of a related reference

What did the court decide?

Release of deposited sum of Rs. 21,88,326/- to petitioner is directed, subject to the outcome of RFA No. 178/2011.

Roop Lal Vs State of H.P — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 6424/2013 Decided on: 5.8.2014

¶3

Roop Lal and others	…………….Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others	……….Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge

¶6

Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶7

For the Petitioners : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate.

¶8

For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate General with Mr. V.S. Attri and Mr. Puneet Rajta, Deputy Advocates General.

¶9

Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):

¶10

According to the petitioner, no compensation has been paid to him qua Khasra No. 347/251 measuring 1-4 Bighas by learned District Judge, Shimla on 7.7.2014, The Court has directed the State Government to file a supplementary affidavit within a period of two weeks whether the petitioner has been paid any compensation for Khasra No. 347/251 or not. In sequel thereto, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the Superintending Engineer on 23.7.2014. According to the averments contained in para-1 of the supplementary affidavit, enhanced compensation has been deposited in the Registry vide bank draft No. 7419371 dated 17.7.2014 amounting to `21,88,326/-.

¶11

Since the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, present petition has become infructuous. The same is dismissed

¶12

¶13

having become infructuous. A sum of `21,88,326/- be released in favour of the petitioner. However, by way of abundant precaution, it is made clear that the release of the amount shall abide by the outcome of RFA No. 178/2011.

¶14

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶15

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge

¶16

(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge

¶17

August 5, 2014 (vikrant)

Roop Lal v. State of H.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Lal v. State of H.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balbir Singh Vs State

Deep Ram Vs State of Hp

Chaman Lal Vs State of H.P

Dr. Sunil Fakay Vs State of Hp

Balak Ram Vs State of Hp

Rajeev Chaudhary Vs State of Hp