2025:HHC:18339 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6371 of 2024 Decided on: 16.06.2025 Piar Chand … Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : M/s Raju Ram Rahi and Harjeet Singh, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit may be issued to the respondents with directions to complete/initiate the process for acquisition of the land measuring 0-5 Marlas comprised in Khata No.4 min, Khatoni No.4 min, khasra Nos.104- 105, kitas-2, measuring 2-10 Karnals, out of the total land i.e. 2-10 Kanals, Tikka Tarkun, Mauza Bhaleth, Up-Tehsil Sujanpur Distt. Hamirpur, within stipulated period and to make payment of compensation to the petitioner with all consequential benefits and interest @ 18% p.a. from 1992 or such other order, writ or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:18339 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the land, description whereof is given in the writ petition was purchased by him by way of a duly registered Sale Deed in the year 1992 and the same stands utilized by the State without compensating the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. In terms of the reply filed by the State the land was acquired in the year 1969 and the Award was also passed in the year 1973. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that the land was acquired in accordance with law including the land purportedly purchased by the petitioner in the year 1992 and the rightful owners of the land were duly compensated as far back as in the year 1974 and therefore, the petitioner has no locus to file and maintain this petition. 5. This is seriously disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who submits that when the petitioner purchased the land in the year 1992, the property was not in possession of the State and the same has been illegally utilized by the State without compensating the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that as there are seriously disputed questions of law involved in this petition which can only be decided on the basis of evidence that may be led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, 3 2025:HHC:18339 the matter cannot be adjudicated by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit on the same cause, if so advised. 8. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 16, 2025 (Rishi)