2025:HHC:8690 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.112 of 2018 Decided on: 02.04.2025 Devi Ram & another … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to initiate the proceedings to assess the damage purportedly caused to the land of the petitioners on account of construction work carried out by the respondents on Kupvi-Dhotali Road. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the course of construction of the road, the Government Contractor disposed of the debris in an un-scientific manner which has caused huge damage to the property of the petitioners. He submits that 12 bighas of irrigated land including the crops standing thereupon were 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:8690 destroyed. 3. This is seriously disputed by the respondents, who have taken the stand that in the course of construction of the road, the area where the muck was to be dumped was duly identified and the muck was dumped at the identified place. It is further the stand of the respondents that no damage to the property of the petitioners has been done as alleged. 4. In the light of the fact that the issues raised by the petitioners for adjudication involve seriously disputed questions of fact which can be adjudicated upon only by way of leading evidence, this Court is of the considered view that it would be prudent if the petitioners approach the appropriate Court of Law/ Civil Court for for further redressal of their grievances. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the time that has been spent by the petitioners while pursuing this remedy, should not come in the way of the petitioners in approaching the Civil Court and they be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Civil Court. 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. It goes without say that the Civil Court shall take into consideration the time that 3 2025:HHC:8690 has been bonafidely spent by the petitioners while pursuing this remedy in this Court while calculating the period of limitation. 7. Petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 02, 2025 (Rishi)