Disposed

Bihari Lal v. Union of India and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC27 Oct 2022CWP/7494/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of the petition by following the precedent set in Bakshi Ram. The court directs the petitioner to file a representation before the High Power Committee within four weeks, which must decide the grievance within three months, rather than granting immediate monetary relief or land exchange.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation before the High Power Committee within four weeks; Committee directed to decide within three months.

Bihari Lal Vs Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 27^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

¶5

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH

¶7

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7494 OF 2022

¶8

Between:-

¶9

BIHARI LAL S/O AMARTU, VPO. SIDHPURGARH, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(SH. S. D. VASUDEVA, ADVOCATE) AND

¶12

1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHARAMSHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI.

¶13

2. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HP, SHIMLA-2.

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RELIEF AND REHABILITATION (R AND R), RAJA-KA-TALAB, TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶15

4. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR.

¶16

¶17

5. ADDITIONAL COLONIZATION COMMISSIONER, BIKANER RAJASTHAN.

¶18

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT SRIGANGANAGAR, RAJASTHAN.

¶19

7. CHAIRMAN, BBMB 19-B, MADHYA MARG HLDC COMPLEX INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I CHANDIGARH-16002.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(SH. BALRAM SHARMA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1

¶22

SH. ASHOK SHARMA, A.G. WITH SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS, ADDL. A.G., SH. BHUPINDER THAKUR, DY. A.G. AND SH. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER, FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 2 & 3

¶23

SH. NITIN THAKUR, ADVOCATE, VICE SH. Y. W. CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 6

¶24

SH. K. B. KHAJURIA, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 7).

¶25

This Petition coming on for orders this day, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan , passed the following:-

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Notice. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor

¶28

General of India, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Nitin Thakur and Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned

¶29

¶30

Advocates, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.

¶31

The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:-

¶32

i. That writ in the nature or mandamus may kindly be directed to provide irrigation water to the allotted land of the petitioner immediately or the allotment of the petitioner may be exchanged with land having irrigation water and all the facilities required for cultivation and human habitation failing which the respondent State of Rajasthan and respondent No. 7 i.e. Chairman BBMB 19B, Madhya Marg HLDC Complex Industrial Area, Phase-I CHD 16002 may be directed to give the financial compensation to the petitioner to the tune of 5 cores for his non-settlement for the last 46 years as well as the cost of the land at Sriganganagar on which he was originally supposed to be settled as directed by the high power committees in its meeting held on 6-7th October 2017 in the interest of justice.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that similar matters were considered by this Court in a batch of cases, lead being CWP No.1540 of 2013, titled as Bakshi Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 6th November, 2013

¶34

and prays that this writ petition be disposed of in terms of the judgment (supra). His statement is taken on record.

¶35

It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment, referred to above:-

¶36

¶37

“2. 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.

¶38

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 Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2.1.2013. It is made clear that the limitation/delay shall not come in the way of the petitioner(s). 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. The respondent- State is also directed to issue the eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioners in CWPs No. 11070 of 2011-G and 1158 of 2013 in order to enable them to present their cases before the high power committee.”

¶39

It is also stated that the judgment, referred to above, was also followed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in SLP(C)

¶40

¶41

No.21904 of 2012, titled State of Rajasthan & another vs. Ashwani Kumar Sharma & others, decided on 2nd January, 2013 and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

¶42

In the given circumstances, as prayed for, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge (supra) with liberty to the petitioner to file representation within four weeks before the High Power Committee. Ordered accordingly. As agreed, the said Committee is directed to decide the same within three months thereafter. Needless to add, such decision shall be taken strictly in accordance with law and after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned, if so required or desired. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶44

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶45

(Virender Singh)

¶46

27^th October, 2022 (sanjeev)

¶47

Judge

Bihari Lal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bihari Lal v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Tej Singh Vs State of Hp

Ravi Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Reeta Sharma Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Jan Kalyan Vikas Munch Tehla Vs State of Hp and Others

Kartar Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sudhesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others