1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Petition No. 1076 of 2024 Decided on: 11.05.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunil Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Sangeeta Vasudeva, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 & 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks enforcement of Karam Chand versus State of H.P and others2, the operative portion of which reads as under:- “4. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of these writ petitions in terms of the judgment made by the learned Single Judge (supra) with liberty to the writ petitioners to file representation(s) within eight weeks before the High Power Committee. The said committee is directed to decide the same within three months thereafter.” With the grievance that respondents had not complied the above directions, present execution petition was instituted. During the pendency of this petition, 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2CWP No.1366/2017, decided on 25.05.2016 2 respondents considered the case of the petitioner under office order dated 22.07.2025, allotted him a specific parcel of land. Petitioner raised certain grievances with regard to allotment which were noticed in the order dated 04.08.2025 as under:- “Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the respondents are allotting a piece of land to the petitioner, but the same is without any basic amenities and the same is just adjacent to the border of the neighbouring country. She further submits that though enough land is available in the area where the land was earlier proposed to be allotted to oustees like the petitioner, but it is because of the inaction on the part of the administration that needful is not being done including the factum of encroachment of the said land being not removed by the Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 is granted four weeks’ time to apprise the Court as to why the petitioner cannot be adjusted in some place in Shri Ganganagar area so that the grievance of the petitioner can be returned. Providing a piece of land which is san any conveniences and adjacent to border area cannot be s`aid to be the compliance of the order passed by the Court in letter and spirit. Now, list on 09.09.2025, to enable the respondents to file fresh compliance affidavit in terms of the orders passed by the Court.” 2. Matter thereafter was adjourned many times to enable the respondents No. 3 & 4 to comply with the aforesaid directions. During course of hearing today, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 has placed on record fresh consideration order dated 06.05.2026 passed by respondent No.4 giving reasons and justification for allotting specific land to the petitioner under order dated 3 22.07.2025, also indicating therein the conveniences available to the petitioner at the allotted land. Learned counsel for the petitioner expresses strong reservations of the petitioner to the allotment made in petitioner’s favour. 3. Taking note of the orders passed by the respondents and the directions issued in Karam Chand2, the present petition to stand disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate substantive remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievances including against the order passed by respondent No.4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 11, 2026 Judge yogesh