Disposed

Raksha Devi v. Union of India and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Jul 2024CWP/1541/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a writ petition for compensation regarding land acquired for national highways. The court found a dispute existed over apportionment, rendering no further order necessary in the writ petition itself.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted in the writ petition; liberty reserved to seek remedy for apportionment dispute.

Raksha Devi Vs Union of India and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.1541 of 2024 Decided on: 19^th July, 2024

¶3

_________________________________________________________________ Raksha Devi ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents

¶4

________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1,2 and 4. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

This writ petition has been filed for grant of

¶10

following substantive relief:-

¶11

“(i) ………. be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents as the land for development of National Highways and associated purposes was acquired under Section 3 of the National Highway Act, 1596 and the compensation

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

amount be released/awarded in favour of the petitioners as per the award passed by respondent No.3 copy of which is already on record as Annexure P-1.”

¶15

2. Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 in their reply have

¶16

submitted that compensation qua structure has already been deposited with respondent No.3 i.e. Competent Authority of Land Acquisition/Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Jawali, District Kangra. However, compensation has not been released as there is a dispute regarding apportionment of the compensation. Reply further states that in view of dispute, respondent No.3 has filed an application under Section 3H(4) of the National Highway Act, 1956 before the learned Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, Kangra at Dharmashala, seeking permission to deposit the awarded compensation i.e. Rs.64,14,000/- pertaining to the disputed structure attached to the acquired land.

¶17

3. In view of reply filed by respondents No. 1,2 and 4 and the averments made therein, no further order is required to be passed in this writ petition, save and except reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for redressal of her grievances.

¶18

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶20

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶21

July 19, 2024 R.Atal

Raksha Devi v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raksha Devi v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Indu Bala W/o Late Sh Kuldeep Chand

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Indu Bala W/o Late Sh Kuldeep Chand

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Harnam Singh Vs Champa Devi

Shanker Singh Verma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Raksha Devi