2025:HHC:24986 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 420 of 2025 Decided on : 29.07.2025 Ram Dei. …Petitioner Versus Beli Ram and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “That the present petition may very kindly be allowed and impugned dated 24.12.2024 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in case No. 35 of 2023 in Ref. No. 60 of 1991 titled Bhagi Vs. Collector Land Acquisition, may kindly be set aside, consequently allowing the application for release filed by petitioner, directing the learned Court below to release the amount in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24986 24.12.2024, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, in terms whereof the application filed by the petitioner seeking release of amount, has been dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Court below. 4. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that it stands observed therein that vide a consolidated Award dated 01.11.1994, Reference Petition No. 60 of 1991 and Reference Petition No. 67 of 1991, were disposed of. 5. Further, in Reference Petition No. 60 of 1991 after the death of Bhagi, his legal representatives, which included the petitioner herein, were brought on record, on 30.06.1993. However, when the legal representatives were brought on record, it was specifically observed that they were being brought on record only for the purpose of pursuing the petition, however, their claim, as far as receipt of compensation amount was concerned, was left open to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. 6. This order further demonstrates that in fact late Sh. 3 2025:HHC:24986 Bhagi had executed a Will and Ram Dei had challenged the validity of the will in Civil Suit No. 34 of 1997, which was dismissed by the learned Court on 18.09.2001. It is in the light of the said judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Court that learned Court below dismissed the application of the petitioner for release of the amount. 7. During the course of hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that in the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner wherein she had challenged the Will, executed by late Sh. Bhagi, learned Civil Court was pleased to dismiss her claim. It could also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sh. Bhagi had not bequeathed his property in favour of his daughters, including the petitioner. Therefore, simply because the petitioner was arrayed as a party in the Reference proceedings in her capacity as a legal representative of Bhagi, this did not confer upon her any automatic right to receive the compensation amount, as was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the filing of the application before the learned Court below was nothing but a 4 2025:HHC:24986 mischievous act on the part of the petitioner and so is the filing of this writ petition before this Court. 8. In the backdrop of the observations made hereinabove, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 29, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)