2025:HHC:34734-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.41 of 2017 Decided on: 13.10.2025 Sh. Surjit Singh … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) There is a very small controversy involved in this petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, in terms whereof, he has not been allotted the land, being landless person, in lieu of the earlier allotment in his favour in the year 1976, which thereafter, was re-called. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the father of the petitioner was a landless person. In consonance with the provisions of the Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, the State Government allotted the land to the father of the petitioner and he also deposited an amount of Rs.250/- in lieu thereof, which was 48 times the market value of the land allotted to him. Learned Counsel has referred to Annexure P-1, wherein, the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34734-DB name of the father of the petitioner, namely, Shri Ram Pyara is there, reflecting the allotment of land to him. He submitted that thereafter, the allotment was cancelled on 23.11.1976. According to the petitioner, in the years 2002 and 2006, the respondent-State came up with a Policy of Re-allotment to the persons who were earlier allotted the land, but the allotment in whose favour was thereafter, cancelled. He further submitted that his father also represented his case, but unfortunately, he died in the year 2008 and till then, no allotment of the land was made in his favour. Thereafter, the petitioner again applied for the allotment of the land, but the same has been rejected in terms of the impugned orders. He submitted that the rejection of the representations of the petitioner in terms of the impugned orders is bad. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to allot the land to the petitioner, as prayed for in the petition. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the reply filed by the State and submitted that when the Policies were brought into force by the State in the years 2002 and 2006, the father of the petitioner did not apply for the re- allotment of the land and in the absence of any such application being there, there was no occasion for the Department to re-allot the land to the petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted that as the present petition is without any merit and as the rejection of the 3 2025:HHC:34734-DB representations of the petitioner was justified, the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 5. The facts, as have been narrated above, are not much in dispute. The father of the petitioner was allotted the land in the year 1976, but said allotment was canncelled in the month of November, 1976 alongwith other persons. Thereafter, in the years 2002 and 2006, the respondent-State came up with the Policy of re-allotment of the land to such like persons, but it appears that the father of the petitioner never applied for it. Though it is averred in the petition by the petitioner that his father represented the authorities, but no such representation is appended with the petition. 6. Be that as it may, it is a matter of record that after the death of father of the petitioner, he approached the Authorities for re-allotment of the land, which prayer of his has been rejected by way of the impugned orders. A perusal of the petition demonstrates that it is mentioned therein that the allotment of land was done not only in favour of the original allottee, whose allotment was subsequently cancelled, but also in favour of legal representatives of the original allottee, who had died in the interregnum. A perusal of the reply demonstrates that this fact has not been denied by the 4 2025:HHC:34734-DB State, but its stand is that because the late father of the petitioner did not apply for allotment of the land during his lifetime, therefore, representations were dismissed. 7. This Court is of the considered view that as it is evident from the record that the original land allottee whose allotment was subsequently cancelled and who after applying for re-allotment of the land died, the allotment was made in favour of their successors- in-interest, this obviously means that re-allotment of the land was not personal to the original allottee only. 8. That being the case, it is not understood as to why the State did not consider the representation of petitioner compassionately, because though, his father might not have applied for re-allotment of the land during his lifetime, but fact of the matter still remains that the father of the petitioner was also one of those persons, to whom the land was initially allotted, who deposited the amount 48 times the market value thereof, but allotment whereof was rescinded later on. 9. This Court would like to make another observation at this stage. It is not as if the cancellation of the allotment was assailed by the aggrieved persons and some judicial orders were passed for the re-allotment of the land. The re-allotment was done by the Government in terms of its own Policies, which it floated in the years 2002 and 2006. Obviously, as the intent of the Policies was 5 2025:HHC:34734-DB to re-allot the land, the representation of the petitioner should have been construed from that perspective and as his father of the petitioner was indeed allotted the land which was subsequently rescinded and if the petitioner otherwise was fulfilling the eligibility criteria like other legal representatives of other deceased land owners, to whom land was allotted later on, the case of the petitioner should have been considered favourably likewise 10. Accordingly, in light of above observations, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders i.e. Annexure P-4 dated 30.04.2015, Annexure P-12 dated 27.09.2016 and Annexure P-13 dated 18.11.2016 are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner and in case the petitioner is eligible for the allotment of the land, that is to say that it if he falls within the same parameters as those legal representatives of deceased land owners, who later on were allotted the land, then let needful be done in favour of the petitioner also. Needful be done within 2 months. 11. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 13, 2025 (Rishi)