Mahender Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 5875/2026 a/w connected matters Decided on: 11.05.2026

1. CWP No. 5875/2	026
Makholi Ram	Versus	…Petitioner
State of H.P. & Ors.		.…Respondents.
2. CWP No. 5876/2	026
Dev Raj	Versus	…Petitioner
State of H.P. & Ors.		.…Respondents.
3. CWP No. 5877/2	026
Gijo Ram	Versus	…Petitioner
State of H.P. & Ors.		.…Respondents.
4. CWP No. 5878/2	026
Pyar Singh	Versus	…Petitioner
State of H.P. & Ors.		.…Respondents.
5. CWP No. 5879/2	026
Mahender Singh	Versus	…Petitioner
State of H.P. & Ors.		.…Respondents.
6. CWP No. 5885/2	026
Sorma Ram	Versus	…Petitioner
State of H.P. & Ors.		.…Respondents.
………………………… *Coram* *Ms. Justice Jyotsna R*	………………………… *ewal Dua, Judge.*	………………………….

¶4

2

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the petitioner(s):

¶7

Mr. I.D. Bali Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.D. Sharma, Advocate in all the petitions.

¶8

For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2 & 4.

¶9

Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.

¶11

Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General & Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 & 4 and 3, respectively in all the petitions.

¶12

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these matters involving similar questions of law and facts have been taken up together for adjudication. In view of the nature of grievance raised in these writ petitions by the petitioners and the order being passed hereinafter, reply is not required from the respondents. The matters have accordingly been heard at this stage.

¶13

These writ petitions have been filed on the assertions that the petitioners were owners of certain parcels of land in District Chamba; Some portions of the lands owned by the petitioner(s) were

¶14

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

3

¶16

acquired by the respondents for construction of Chamera Hydro Electric Project Stage-II, District Chamba during the years 2000– 2002. According to the petitioner(s), the respondents had framed a Scheme for Resettlement and Rehabilitation of the persons affected on account of construction of Chamera Hydro Electric Project Stage-II and, in terms of Part-XII thereof, one member of each affected family was eligible for employment.

¶17

3 . Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner(s) in all these writ petitions submits that the petitioner(s) were eligible for the benefits under the aforesaid Scheme, however, none of their family members has been provided employment, despite the fact that compensation for the acquired land had been paid by the respondents. Reliance in support of the assertions has been placed upon Karam Chand Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.² , the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 26.11.2011, in case File No. 40-CBA-3XIII-A/11, and National Hydro Electric Corporation Ltd. Vs. Karam Chand (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.³ as affirmed in National Hydro Electric Corporation Ltd. Vs. Karam Chand (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.⁴

¶18

The writ petitions do not indicate that any representation

¶19

was ever preferred by the petitioner(s) for the reliefs prayed for in

¶20

2 CWP No. 2714/2011 decided on 02.05.2011

¶21

3 LPA No. 214/2016 decided on 12.01.2023

¶22

4 Special Leave to Appeal (C ) No(s). 14431/2023 decided on 21.10.2024

¶23

4

¶24

these writ petitions. It appears that a notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner(s) on 16.06.2025. The same was responded to by respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, District Chamba on 19.08.2025, raising the grounds of delay and laches on part of the petitioner(s) in approaching the respondents, as also questioning the eligibility of the petitioner(s) to claim the benefits under the Resettlement & Rehabilitation Scheme.

¶25

Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, since respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, Chamba is the authorized officer under the Scheme in question, therefore, without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to respondent No.4 to consider and decide the cases of the petitioner(s) within a period of eight weeks from today. Needless to clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties on both sides are left open, including the issue of delay and laches, its impact upon the claim, as also the eligibility of the petitioner(s) to claim the benefits under the Resettlement & Rehabilitation Scheme. The orders so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶26

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶27

11^th May, 2026(rohit)

Mahender Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahender Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushma Kumari Vs Gopal Beri

Banti Ram Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Rekha Sharma Vs Amarjeet K Sharma

Anmol Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Vidya Chauhan Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Mahasu Peak Resorts and Recreations Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Hpsebl and Others