IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.297 of 2025 Date of Decision: 6.1.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Salochana Devi ……...Petitioner. Versus Union of India and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Sangeeta Vasudeva, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for Union of India. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.R. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4 to 6 . Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.7. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “i) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioner and with further direction to respondent No.3 to take appropriate steps in accordance with letter dated 29.01.2013 in compliance of letter issued by - 2 - Rajasthan government bearing NO. F12(3)(3) revenue/87/3794 dated 26.06.2012. ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the State of Rajasthan may please be directed to allot land in district Sriganganagar i.e. Tehsil Anupgarh, Tehsil Gharsana or Tehsil Srivijanagar or in Jetsar Farm or allot fully commendable Murabba to the petitioner in Phase-I of District Sriganganagar or out of 1188 cases of encroachments, failing which the respondent State of Rajasthan and respondent No.7 i.e. Chairman BBMB 19-B, Madhya Marg HLDC Complex Industrial Area, Phase-I Chandigarh-16002 may be directed to give the financial compensation to the petitioner to the tune of 5 Crores for her non-settlement for the last 46 years as well as the cost of the land at Sriganganagar on which he was originally supposed to be settled as directed by the high power committees in its meeting held on 6-7th October 2017.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that her client would be satisfied in case she is permitted to make a representation clearly setting out therein her grievances. The prayer being innocuous is allowed. 3. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents and in the event of such representation being made within three weeks from today, this Court has no reason to doubt that the same shall be considered sympathetically by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the receipt of such representation. Ordered accordingly. - 3 - 4. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. January 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge