Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rattan Chand And Ors vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 29 August, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1952 of 2018 Date of Decision: 29.8.2018 ____ Rattan Chand and Ors. .....Petitioners.
Versus .
State of H.P. and Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals.
__________________________________________________________________ Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (oral) Petitioners, by the medium of this petition have mainly prayed for the following relief:
" 1. That appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by directing the respondents to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner for the land which has been utilized by the respondents for the construction of Naina Tikkar Dangyar Road alongwith interest @ 18% per annum including all other monetary claim prescribed in Land Acquisition Act from the date of notification issued to the construction of Naina Tikkar Dangyar Road. Further the respondents may be directed to issue the notification to acquire the land of the petitioners as on spot the same has already been utilized by the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, submits that the petitioners shall be content if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation, venting out their grievances, which they shall be 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:37:41 :::HCHP
...2...
making within a period of two weeks from today. Also, petitioners do .
not press the issue raised in the present petition, for the relief as orally prayed for, is that of a mere direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation which they shall be making within a period of two weeks from today.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General for the
5. respondents has no objection to the same.
4. No other point is urged.
Leaving all questions of law open, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel more so, for the reason that the petition, as prayed for is not pressed, we dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months' from the receipt thereof, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned, within a period of two months thereafter.
6. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioners, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioners. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.
7. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:37:41 :::HCHP
...3...
8. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands .
disposed of, so also pending applications(s), if any.
Copy dasti.
( Sanjay Karol),
Acting Chief Justice
29th August, 2018 ( Sandeep Sharma ),
(Manjit/brb) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2018 21:37:41 :::HCHP