Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bhawani Dutt Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Others on 28 November, 2019

Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Anoop Chitkara

    THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                            CWP No. 1557 of 2017
                                            Decided on: 28.11.2019




                                                                        .

      Bhawani Dutt Sharma                                           ......Petitioner

                                          Versus





      State of H.P. and others                                  ......Respondents


      Coram
      The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.





      The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
      Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
      For the petitioner:                Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate.
      For the respondents:
                           r             Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl. A.G

                                         with Mr. Narinder Guleria, Addl.
                                         A.G and Mr. Hemanshu Mishra,
                                         Addl. A.G.
      Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

In this writ petition a direction has been sought to be issued to the respondents to implement the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 2001 amended from time to time by returning back to the petitioner and residents of village Dhamoon, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. as per their respective shares in the 'Shamlat' land comprising 856 kitas, measuring 1024 bighas and 16 biswas (92-29-38 Hectares) on exclusion of such portion being utilized as cattle ponds, manure pits, paths, kuhals recorded in Khataunis of 'Sharai-am' and 'Rafai-

am' as per jamabandi for the year 2005-06, Annexure P-9. As a matter of fact, petitioner has made a representation dated 9 th September, 2013, Annexure P-25 to the writ petition to the Deputy 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Commissioner, Shimla, respondent No.3. The said representation has not yet been considered and decided.

.

2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner would feel content in case respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation, Annexure P-25 by a reasoned order and also affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in a time bound manner and rightly so as it is for the said respondent to first decide the controversy brought by the petitioner and other residents of village Dhamoon.

3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the representation Annexure P-25 within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before him by the petitioner by a reasoned order. The opportunity of being heard be given to the petitioner and also other residents of village Dhamoon, if required. The petitioner, if still feels aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision to be so taken by respondent No.3 in the matter shall be at liberty to resort to the remedy available to him in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

                                          (Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
                                                    Judge


    November 28, 2019                             (Anoop Chitkara)
            (naveen)                                   Judge




                                                ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:16 :::HCHP