Rita Chaudhary Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rita Chaudhary Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

CMP No.1051 of 2025 disposed of: the petitioner and persons authorised by him are barred from excavating or digging the Kansa Khad area while the Court is seized of the matter; the petitioner's counsel undertook that no heavy machinery would be used nor digging carried out so as not to affect the ongoing demarcation; the State was directed to prevent any person other than the parties from such activities, with compliance by respondent No.6 and respondent No.8-Deputy Commissioner, Mandi.

Issue for consideration

Whether, the Court being seized of the matter and demarcation of the site pending, the petitioner or persons authorised by him may carry out digging, excavation or construction work with JCB in the Kansa Khad area, or whether such activity should be restrained.

Court's answer

Once the Court is seized of the matter, the petitioner or any person authorised by him (or in the near vicinity) has no right to excavate or dig the Kansa Khad area.

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded the undertaking of Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner that no authorised person shall use heavy machinery for excavation or carry out digging activities in the said Khad area, so as not to adversely affect the demarcation process.

Key takeaways

The State is further directed to ensure that no person other than the parties concerned carries out any such excavation/digging activities, the Court being already seized of the matter.ratio¶13
Compliance with the order is entrusted to respondent No.6 and also to respondent No.8, Deputy Commissioner, Mandi.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Satyen Vaidya, J), order dated 09.01.2025 in CWPIL No. 106 of 2024, Rita Chaudhary v. State of H.P. & Others, disposing of CMP No.1051 of 2025 filed by respondents No.10 and 11 seeking restraint on the petitioner's digging/excavation and construction work with JCB in the Kansa Khad area. Noting the earlier orders dated 03.12.2024 (restraining respondents No.10 and 11 from excavation in Kansa Khad, with respondent No.6 to ensure compliance) and dated 30.12.2024 (directing physical inspection and demarcation of the site), and that a JCB machine admittedly stood at the site, the Court held that once seized of the matter, the petitioner or any person authorised by him has no right to excavate or dig the area. Counsel for the petitioner undertook that no authorised person would use heavy machinery or carry out digging in the Khad area so as not to adversely affect the demarcation process. The State was directed to ensure that no person apart from the parties concerned undertakes such activities, with compliance by respondent No.6 and respondent No.8-Deputy Commissioner, Mandi.

Rita Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. & Others.

CWPIL No. 106 of 2024.

Item No. (S-8)

09.01.2025

Present : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 9.

Mr. Sandeep Dutta, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.10 and 11.

CMP No.1051 of 2025.

This application has been filed on behalf of respondents No.10 and 11 for interim directions that the petitioner be restrained from doing digging excavation and construction work in the area of Kansa Khad with JCB.

It is brought to our notice that on 03.12.2024, respondents No.10 and 11 had been restrained from carrying out any excavation/digging for the construction work etc., in Kansa Khad and respondent No.6 had also been directed to ensure that this order is complied with in its letter and spirit. Vide subsequent order dated 30.12.2024, it was also directed that the physical inspection of the site be carried out and demarcation be conducted to resolve the issue. There is no dispute at that present, there is a JCB machine at the site, which is even admitted by the petitioner.

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner or any person authorized by him or near vicinity, would have no right to excavate or dig the said area, once the Court is seized of the matter.

Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that any authorized person shall not use any heavy machinery for excavation or carry out digging activities in the said Khad area, which may adversely affect the demarcation process.

Accordingly, we further direct the State to ensure that no other person, apart from the parties concerned, shall do any such activities as the Court is already seized of the matter.

Accordingly, order be complied with by respondent No.6 and also respondent No.8-Deputy Commissioner, Mandi.

The application stands disposed of.

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

9^th January, 2025 (munish thakur)