IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.614 of 2024 Date of Decision: 21.04.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Jagat Ram and Another ……...Petitioners Versus Onkar Chand Sharma and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Shivani Priya, proxy counsel, for Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment dated 23.04.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.3141 of 2023, titled Jagat Ram & Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, whereby direction came to be issued to respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under relevant statutes vis-a-vis land of the petitioners and thereafter, just and fair compensation be awarded to them. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, needful never came to be done at the behest of respondents within the stipulated time, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, but careful perusal of the same reveals that no cogent and convincing explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in implementation of the judgment, alleged to have been violated. It is averred in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that Letters Patent Appeal having been filed against the judgment alleged to have been violated is still pending adjudication. 3. During proceedings of the case, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioners made available copy of judgment dated 10.04.2025 passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CMP(M) No.2111 of 2024 in LPA No.174 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Jagat Ram and Another, along with connected matters, perusal whereof reveals that appeal having been filed by the respondents stands dismissed on the ground of limitation, if it is so, respondents have no option but to implement the judgment alleged to have been violated. Needless to say, till the time judgment alleged to have been violated is not stayed, varied or modified, respondents have no option but to implement the same. Since Letters Patent Appeal, laying therein challenge to aforesaid judgment already stands dismissed, respondents cannot escape from their liability of taking necessary steps for implementation of judgment alleged to have been violated. 3 4. Though at this stage, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General prayed for some more time, but having taken note of the fact that judgment alleged to have been violated was passed one year back i.e. on 23.04.2024, but till date, needful has not been done, there appears to be no justification for this Court to grant further time, rather, appropriate action is required to be taken against the respondents for their having wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. Before orders, if any, could be issued, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated shall be positively complied with, within a period of eight weeks. 5. Consequently, in view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. However, respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of eight weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. April 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge