IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2828 of 2019 Decided on: 24th June, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dhani Ram 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: Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That respondents may very kindly be directed to release rehabilitation and grant to the tune of Rs.11.00 lakhs each, for which the petitioners are entitled on the basis of the scheme, immediately without any further delay, alongwith interest at the market rate from the date their land(s) have been acquired till the actual date of payment; 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to implement the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme in its totality as the scheme was framed specifically for the benefit of oustees as well as affected families, who have, in fact, lost their valuable agricultural land(s) and houses, for establishment of cement plant and mining activities by respondent No.5; (iii) That respondent No.5 may very kindly be directed to provide suitable employment to each affected family under the scheme immediately so that the poor rustic people may not be further exploited as they have already lost their valuable land and houses as acquired by respondent No.5 and are at the verge of starvation.” 2. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that similar matters, i.e. Luxmi Chand Versus State of H.P. and others2 and Brij Lal Versus State of H.P. and others3, had been instituted seeking almost similar reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of with direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for examining the grievances of the petitioners therein within the stipulated period. The decision rendered in Luxmi Chand2 reads as under:- “The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Implement the resettlement and rehabilitation of oustees of Jaypee Himachal Cement Project (Grant of land and other benefits) Scheme, 2005, vide Annexure P­3. (ii) To release the monetary benefits to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.70,000/­ each in the form of houseless grant plus Rs.65,000/­ in the form of 2 CWP No.2905 of 2009, decided on 21.12.2018 3 CWP No.4247 of 2012, decided on 17.09.2019 3 landless grant and Rs.5,000/­ as financial assistance on account of cattle shed alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum till realisation of the amount. (iii) To direct the respondents to provide independent house and built up plinth area of 60 sq. meter, as provided in para 2.1.1 (b) of the Scheme vide Annexure P­3, in favour of the petitioners. (iv) To order respondents No.2 and 3 to ensure the construction of re­settlement colony within a stipulated period. 2. It is not in dispute that under the relief of Rehabilitation Scheme, it is only, the Deputy Commissioner, who is competent to decide the claims arising out of this Scheme. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner before approaching this Court, has not approached the Deputy Commissioner, Solan. 3. A co­ordinate Bench of this Court, while adjudicating CWP No.268 of 2012 titled Hem Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on May 18, 2017 has relegated the petitioner therein to first approach the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, for the redressal of his grievance and only if aggrieved, thereafter to approach this Court. 4. Likewise, the same view has been taken by a co­ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.273 of 2012 titled Mehar Chand vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 18.7.2017. 5. In this view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, for the redressal of his grievance, within a period of one month, who in turn, shall decide the same within a period of two months, thereafter taking into consideration the policy in vogue. Needless to say, while doing so, Deputy Commissioner shall afford opportunity of hearing to the parties. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach competent court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s) if any, is also disposed of.” Relevant portion of Brij Lal3 goes as under:- “12. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to 4 the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, for the redressal of his grievance, within a period of one month, who in turn, shall decide the same within a period of two months, thereafter taking into consideration the policy in vogue. Needless to say, while doing so, Deputy Commissioner shall afford opportunity of hearing to the parties. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach competent court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s) if any, is also disposed of. 13. However, before parting, it is made clear that this Court has not at all touched upon the merits of controversy and any observation made hereinabove is solely for the disposal of the writ petition and shall not be binding on the adjudicatory authority and shall not in any manner be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. At the same time, the parties shall be at liberty to rely upon the pleadings and other materials that has come on record of this case. 14. In addition thereto, the fee of the Local Commissioner was directed to be borne equally by the parties at the first instance and it was observed that the same shall be exclusively borne by the party against whom such report is eventually found. 15. Now that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, therefore, this order is kept in abeyance till the time the Deputy Commissioner, Solan decide the case and needless to say that the fate of the case would determine the ultimate liability to pay the total fee of the Local Commissioner.” 3. In view of above submissions and following the decisions rendered in Luxmi Chand2 and Brij Lal3, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to prefer representation(s) to respondent No.3-the Deputy Commissioner, Solan within a week from today. On receipt of the same, respondent No.3/competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law keeping in view the applicable policy, within a period of 5 eight weeks thereafter, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders including the petitioners and respondent No.5. It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties on the issues raised by the petitioners including impact, if any, of the alleged delay on their part in seeking the relief, have been left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 24, 2026 Judge Mukesh