2025:HHC:12867 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3416 of 2025 Decided on: 07.05.2025 Sh. Tek Chand … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) With the consent of the parties the petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “A. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Committee to take immediate steps to restore the remaining land of the Petitioner and further pay the adequate compensation to the Petitioner. B. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Committee to determine the extent of damage so caused to the Petitioner and accordingly pay the compensation for which Petitioner is entitled in accordance with law.” 3. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the petitioner earlier also approached this Court, praying for same relied by way of CWP No.2472 of 2019, titled as Tek Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, which was decided by this Court on 30.07.2021, in the following terms:- “Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:12867 similar situation a Committee has been formed by the respondents/State in terms of Annexure R-2/1 and that in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he is also entitled to make a claim therein. 2. Petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner may be permitted to make a claim therein in order to seek relief from the Committee. Hence, she pleads that the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. The request is accepted. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the concerned Committee for necessary relief(s). Pending miscellaneous application is disposed off accordingly.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner before the Committee concerned, however, till date nothing has been done by the Committee in this regard. Learned Deputy Advocate General assures the Court that the application filed by the petitioner qua compensation for the alleged loss caused to their property shall be dealt with by the Committee in accordance with its jurisdiction and appropriate order thereupon after hearing all the stake holders shall be passed within eight weeks from today. His statement is taken on record. 5. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 07, 2025 (Rishi)