SINGHI RAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2024-12-23. SINGHI RAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
2024:HHC:15716 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No. 8519 of 2023 Date of Decision: 23. 12. 2024 ______________________________________________________________ Singhi Ram ……... Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others ….... Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B. C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 and 3/State. ______________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated nil, issued under the signatures of Land Acquisition Collector-cum-SDO (Civil), Manali, District Kullu-respondent No. 3, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that reliefs No.
1 and 3, as prayed for in the instant petition, stands granted. He states that in terms of afore communication, respondent No. 3 has released compensation qua abadi deh land of the petitioner. He further states that as per relief No. 2, with regard to benefit under Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme, petitioner herein be permitted to make representation to respondent No. 3, with the direction to decide the same in time bound manner. 2. While fairly admitting factum with regard to release of compensation qua abadi deh land of the petitioner, Mr. Balram Sharma, 2024:HHC:15716 learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General fairly state that representation, if any, made for grant of relief No. 2, shall be considered in accordance with law. 3.
Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to respondents, seeking therein benefit under Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme, within a period of two weeks, which in-turn shall be decided by the respondents, possibly within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders and pass detailed speaking order. With these observations, petition stands disposed of, along with pending applications, if any. December 23, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge
Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.