Mahinder Pal and Others Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mahinder Pal and Others Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; petition disposed of as defective, with liberty reserved to file a fresh petition with appropriate pleadings and all relevant documents.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the respondents withheld/restricted the compensation payable to the petitioners and sought to release only partial compensation @ Rs.4752/- per square meter instead of the awarded compensation, is liable to be quashed by writ of certiorari. +3 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the only document on record was the notice dated 30.03.2026, and neither the Award reflecting the petitioners' entitlement nor the arbitration proceedings referred to therein (nor the orders passed in those proceedings) were placed on record, the relief claimed by the petitioners could not be considered or granted; the petition being defective was disposed of accordingly.

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to file a fresh petition in accordance with law with appropriate pleadings including therein all relevant documents; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No. 9160 of 2026 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 17.06.2026; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) - Five petitioners sought (i) certiorari against a notice dated 30.03.2026 issued by the SDO(C)/Competent Authority (LA), Bilaspur (respondent No.2) restricting land-acquisition compensation to Rs.4752/- per sq m against the awarded Rs.8392/- per sq m under Award No.7/AD dated 24.09.2025 (Muhal Padgal, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur); (ii) mandamus for full disbursement with statutory benefits, solatium and interest; (iii) a declaration that mere pendency of NHAI arbitration, absent any stay, does not bar disbursement; and (iv) restraint on coercive steps/forcible dispossession till lawful compensation is released. Holding: the sole document on record was the impugned notice; neither the Award nor the NHAI arbitration proceedings or orders passed therein were appended, so the relief could not be considered or granted. The petition was disposed of as defective, with liberty reserved to file a fresh petition with appropriate pleadings and all relevant documents. No statute or precedent was cited; none of the prayed issues was decided on merits.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 9160 of 2026 Decided on: 17.06.2026

Mahinder Pal and others …..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P and others

..Respondents

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioners: Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2.

Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 & 4.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioners five in number have moved this

joint petition seeking following substantive reliefs:-

“(i). Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) to the extent whereby the respondents have illegally withheld/restricted the compensation amount payable to the petitioners and sought to release only partial compensation @ ₹4752/- per square meter instead of the awarded compensation.

(ii). Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release/disburse the entire compensation amount @₹8392/- per square meter for the entire acquired land of the petitioners in terms of Award No.7/AD dated 24.09.2025 of Muhal Padgal, Tehsil Sadar, District

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

2

Bilaspur, H.P. alongwith all statutory benefits, solatium and interest, within a time bound period. (iii). Issue appropriate directions declaring that mere pendency of arbitration proceedings initiated by NHAI does not bar disbursement of awarded compensation in absence of any stay order passed by the Arbitrator or any competent Court of law. (iv). Issue directions restraining the respondents from taking coercive steps or forcibly dispossessing the petitioners or disturbing their possession till lawful compensation in accordance with Award No.7/AD dated 24.09.2025 is released.”

2. The only document appended with the petition is a notice dated 30.03.2026 issued by Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Sadar, District Bilaspur- cum- Competent Authority Land Acquisition (respondent No.2). The said notice has been issued to Shri Bhupinder S/o Shri Garib Dass (petitioner No.4). The notice pertains to release of awarded compensation to the extent indicated therein. From the notice, it appears that some proceedings have been initiated by the respondent- National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against the Award before the Arbitrator. No other document is available on record. Petitioners have neither appended the Award to reflect their entitlement to a specific compensation amount therein nor the arbitration proceedings referred to in the aforesaid notice have been placed on record. The orders passed in the arbitration proceedings are also not available. In such circumstances, without going through

3

the relevant documents, and the corresponding pleadings in that regard, the relief as claimed for by the petitioners cannot be considered/granted in their favour. The petition being defective is disposed of accordingly. Liberty however is reserved to the petitioners to file a fresh petition in accordance with law with appropriate pleadings including therein all relevant documents. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 17, 2026 Judge yogesh