Disposed

Ashok Kumar and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Apr 2022CWP/1654/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a writ petition concerning land-grievances. It permitted petitioners to represent before a functional high power committee to address their issues and similar persons within six months, guided by specific Supreme Court judgments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to make representations; high power committee to decide within six months with detailed speaking orders.

Ashok Kumar and Others Vs Stat… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 4^th DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

¶4

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1654 of 2022

¶5

Between:-

¶6

1. SH. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O SH. KISHAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE & P.O KATORA, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTT. KANGRA (H.P) PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.590, SECTOR 11-B, CHANDIGARH

¶7

2. SMT. NISHA RANI, W/O SH. PAWAN KUMAR JASWAL, D/O LATE SH. KISHAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O GOODWILL PUBLIC SCHOOL, MANI MAJARA, CHANDIGARH.

¶8

3. SMT. ANITA, W/O SH. SUKARM SINGH, D/O LATE SH. KISHAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.370, SECTOR 15. PANCHKULA (HR.)

¶9

4. SMT. BABITA, W/O SH. PARDEEP SINGH THAKUR, D/O LATE SH. KISHAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 2048-A, BLOCK 21, SECTOR 63, CHANDIGARH

¶10

5. SMT. SATYA DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE SH. KISHAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, VILLAGE & P.O KATORA, TEHSIL JAWALI DISTT. KANGRA (H.P) PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.590, SECTOR 11B, CHANDIGARH OLD ADDRESS AS TIKKA SUKNARA MAUZA NAGROTA DEHRA DISTRICT KANGRA (H.P)

¶11

.…..PETITIONERS.

¶12

¶13

(BY SH. B. NANDAN VASISHTA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY (REVENUE), TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶16

2. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-1

¶17

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RELIEF & REHABILITATION, RAJA KA TALAB, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶18

4. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

¶19

5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT SRIGANGANAGAR, RAJASTHAN

¶20

6. COMMISSIONER COLONIZATION BIKANER DISTRICT BIKANER, RAJASTHAN

¶21

.…..RESPONDENTS.

¶22

( BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. ASHWANI SHARMA, ANIL JASWAL, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS, VIKRANT CHANDEL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-STATE

¶23

MR. BALRAM SHARMA, ASGI FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. MR. YASH WARDHAN CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6)

¶24

This petition coming on for admission before

¶25

notice this day, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:

¶26

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Notice. Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Mr. Yash Wardhan Chauhan, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 3, 2 and 4 to 6 respectively.

¶29

It is not in dispute that after the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan & Another versus Union of India & Others, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 749, a high power committee has been constituted to look into the grievance of the petitioners and similar situate persons. This committee is still functional.

¶30

Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make representation(s) before the high power committee. The committee shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and similar situate persons within a period of six months after receipt of the representation(s). The committee shall also be guided by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.492 of 2007, titled as “Ashwani Kumar V. Union of India”, decided on 29.3.2011, against which an SLP was preferred which was dismissed by the

¶31

¶32

Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2.1.2013. It is made clear that the limitation/delay shall not come in the way of the petitioners. It is also made clear that the high power committee shall decide the cases individually and pass speaking/detailed order(s), strictly as per the averments made in the representation(s). It is further clarified that if the land is available in Sriganganagar (reserved area), this aspect shall also be taken into consideration.

¶33

With these observations, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.

¶34

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶35

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶36

4^th APRIL, 2022 (mamta)

Ashok Kumar and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Neeraj Singh and C/O Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Jagir Singh Vs the Bhakra Beas Management Board and Anr.

Jyoti Kumari Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Jaswant Behl Vs the Baghat Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Matu Bala Vs State of Hp and Anr.