Disposed

Dharm Chand v. Union of India

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Mar 2023CWP/909/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a writ petition concerning grievances of persons affected by the Pong Dam. The court directed the petitioner to file a representation before the High Power Committee and the Committee to render a decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to file representation before High Power Committee; directed to decide within three months.

Dharm Chand Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 909 of 2023 Decided on: 04.03.2023

¶4

_________________________________________________ Dharam Chand ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors …Respondents ______________________________________________________________

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶8

___________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. I.N. Mehta Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Guleria Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 7. Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.8. _______________________________________________________________

¶9

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶10

Learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar

¶11

that similar matters were considered by this Court in a batch of

¶12

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶13

¶14

cases, lead case of which is CWP No.1540 of 2013 , titled Bakshi Ram vs. Union of India , decided on 6th November, 2013 and pray that this writ petition be disposed of in terms of the judgment (supra). Their statements are taken on record.

¶15

It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the

¶16

judgment, referred to above at pages 25 and 26, herein:-

¶17

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 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.

¶18

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.”

¶19

It is also stated that the judgment, referred to

¶20

above, was also followed by the Division Bench of this Court

¶21

¶22

and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in SLP(C) 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.

¶23

In the given circumstances, 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 writ petitioner to file representation within four weeks before the High Power Committee. The said Committee is directed to decide the same within three months thereafter.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any.

¶25

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶26

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶27

4^th March, 2023 (himani)

Dharm Chand v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharm Chand v. Union of India

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

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Kaushalya Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Punit Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Abnish Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Mangal Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Ranjha Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others