IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 900/2024 Decided on: 24.07.2025 Jogal Ram …..Petitioner Versus State and Ors. .....Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.6. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J The petitioner seeks to enforce the decision rendered in Jogal Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2, operative part of which, reads as under:- “11. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to assess the damage caused to the house and land of the petitioner and thereafter adequate compensation be paid to him expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 CWP No. 3147/2015 decided on 11.03.2024 2 terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is clarified that once damage, if any, is assessed qua house and land of the petitioner and adequate compensation is paid, petitioner shall not be entitled to retain the possession of the same. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 2. Several orders were passed in this petition from time to time, the last one passed on 23.06.2025 reads as under: - “Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 has placed on record office order dated 17.06.2025 and on that basis submits that efforts are underway to expeditiously implement the decision rendered on 11.03.2024 in CWP No.3147 of 2015 (Jogal Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors.). It is further submitted that the petitioner has been associated by the Committee constituted by respondent No.3 for implementation of the judgment. Since the decision was rendered as far back as on 11.03.2024 and was directed to be implemented within a period of four months, but has still not been implemented, respondent No.3 is directed to place on record the compliance report on the next date of hearing, failing which appropriate orders shall be passed in the matter. List on 24.07.2025.” 3. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.3 placed on record its compliance affidavit during hearing of the case. As per the compliance affidavit:- A Committee was constituted by respondent No.3 for assessing the damage caused to the houses and land of the petitioner; The Committee members conducted the site visit on 18.06.2025 after duly informing the petitioner, who was also associated in the assessment process; During site visit, the Committee could not trace 3 any house of the petitioner, therefore, measurement of the houses could not be undertaken as only the debris was lying at the spot; After taking into consideration the documents, more particularly the communication dated 04.09.2015 issued by the Additional District Magistrate Mandi, based on the actual damage caused to petitioner’s houses, the assessment of the houses was carried out. Based on the same, a sum of Rs.3,86,000/- was computed as cost of damage in respect of petitioner’s first house and Rs.1,14,313/- as cost of damage in respect of his second house; The total valuation in respect of the houses works out to be Rs. 5,00,313/-. The compliance affidavit further records that no damage has been caused to the land of the petitioner; The said land is still being used as an agricultural land. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the assertions made by respondent No.3 in the compliance affidavit with respect to his land as well as the assessment carried out qua damage to petitioner’s houses. He seeks liberty for petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for the redressal of his grievances against the assessment carried out by respondent No.3 and the computation of the assessment qua his damaged houses. 5. Taking note of the compliance affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the said respondent is permitted to deposit the assessed compensation i.e. Rs.5,00,313/- in the Registry of this Court within two weeks from today. 4 In view of above, the present petition to stand disposed of as satisfied with liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 24, 2025 (rohit)