2025:HHC:8504 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.618 of 2024 Date of Decision: 01.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ram Ashra ……...Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Kumar …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment passed in CWP Nos. 3151, 3141, 3142, 3150, 3153 & 3155 of 2023 titled a Veer Singh @ Amar Nath Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters, whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents to initate acquisition proceedings within a period of four weeks under the relevant statute vis-a-vis land of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of passing of the judgment, alleged to have been violated. Since, no steps ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful in terms of 2 mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 to 4 filed reply, perusal whereof reveals that sole reason assigned for non-implementation of judgment, alleged to have been violated, is that Public Works Department has filed Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment, alleged to have been violated. However, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner made available copies of orders/judgments dated 06.12.2024 and 04.01.2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court, thereby dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying therein for condonation of delay in maintaining the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment, alleged to have been violated. 3. Though at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that appeal filed in the case at hand has not been dismissed, but he was unable to dispute that orders/judgments dated 06.12.2024 and 04.01.2025 were passed in LPA’s filed by the department, laying therein challenge to common judgment dated 23.04.2024 passed by this Court in CWP’s, as detailed herein above. If it is so, factum of orders, if not passed in the case at hand by Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondents, may not have much bearing. Since in similar cases, LPAs preferred by the respondents stand dismissed, they have no option, 3 but to implement the judgment, alleged to have been violated. Though, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently prayed for further time to do the needful, but having taken note of fact that judgment, alleged to have been violated was passed on 23.12.2024, coupled with the fact that LPA’s filed against the same stand dismissed, there appears to be no justification to grant further time. 4. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned Additional Advocate General prays and is granted eight weeks’ time to implement the judgment. 5. In view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure compliance of the judgment, alleged to have been violated, within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, they would aggravate the contempt and petitioner 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 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge