Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 22]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Chanchalo Devi & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 20 September, 2016

Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                      SHIMLA
                                       CWP Nos.2433, 2434 and 2435 of
                                       2016
                                       Date of decision: 20.09.2016




                                                                   .
    1.     CWP No.2433 of 2016





           Chanchalo Devi & others                                   ..Petitioners
                                Versus





           State of H.P. & others                                 . Respondents

    2.     CWP No.2434 of 2016
           Milkhi Ram                                                ..Petitioner




                                          of
                                Versus

           State of H.P. & others                                 . Respondents

    3.
                    rt
           CWP No.2435 of 2016
           Rattan Chand & another                                    ..Petitioners

                                Versus

           State of H.P. & others                                 . Respondents
    Coram:


    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
    Whether approved for reporting?




    For the petitioners:        Mr.Naresh Verma, Advocate.

    For the respondents:        Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with





                                Mr.Anup     Rattan,   Mr.Romesh  Verma,
                                Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.J.K.
                                Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the





                                State of Himachal Pradesh.

                                Mr.Y.W. Chauhan, Advocate, for the State of
                                Rajasthan.
    ________________________________________________________________________________

    Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)

Learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that similar matters were considered by this Court in a batch of cases, lead case of which is CWP No.1540 of 2013, titled Bakshi Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 6th November, 2013 and prayed that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:31 :::HCHP 2 these writ petitions be disposed of in terms of the judgment (supra).

Their statements are taken on record.

2. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment, .

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

"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, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 749, a high power committee has been constituted to look into the grievance of the of petitioners and similar situate persons. This committee is still functional.

Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make rt 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."

3. It is also stated that the judgment, referred to above, was also followed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in SLP(C) No.21904 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:31 :::HCHP 3 of 2012, titled State of Rajasthan & another vs. Ashwani Kumar Sharma & others, decided on 2nd January, 2013 and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

.

4. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of these writ petitions in terms of the judgment made by the learned Single Judge (supra) with liberty to the writ petitioners to file representation(s) within eight weeks before the High Power of Committee. The said Committee is directed to decide the same within three months thereafter.

5. Accordingly, rt the writ petitions are disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any.

Copy dasti.


                                                     ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir )
                                                          Chief Justice



    September 20, 2016                              ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )
         (hemlata/vt)                                      Judge







                                               ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:31 :::HCHP