IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7596/2021 Decided on: 25.05.2026 Sudesh Nanda & Ors. …Petitioners Versus Satlij Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General & with Mr. Rahul Kapoor, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme framed by respondent No.1 for project affected landless families, to the petitioners. 2. Respondent No.2 in its reply has inter alia pleaded that petitioner’s land was acquired by respondent No.1; Possession of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 said land was delivered by petitioner’s husband to respondent No.1 and fair compensation of the acquired land was released in their favour; On conclusion of acquisition proceedings, a Rehabilitation & Resettlement Plan was formulated in order to rehabilitate/resettle the families rendered landless/houseless on account of the land acquisition, however, name of petitioner’s husband was not included in the list of landless persons; That on receipt of petitioner’s representation, they were asked to furnish requisite details as per Annexure R-1 vide office letter dated 22.06.2019, but no response to the same was furnished by the petitioners, therefore, respondents were not in a position to verify the entitlement of the petitioners for the benefits flowing under the said Scheme. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had though previously preferred a representation to the respondents, but the petitioners are ready & willing to furnish a comprehensive representation again along with requisite details as sought for by the respondents for ascertaining their eligibility for the benefits under the applicable Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider & decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, to be preferred by them, as also their eligibility under the Scheme. 3 This is not opposed by learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 & 2. In view of the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation for the redressal of their grievances raised in this writ petition, appending all the documents sought for by the respondents under Annexure R-1 dated 22.06.2019, within four weeks. In case such representation is received, the same shall be considered & decided by respondent No.2/competent authority within three months thereafter, in accordance with law and keeping in view the applicable scheme, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 25th May, 2026(rohit)