IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.723 of 2025 Decided on 18th September, 2025 Sh. Jitender Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1 to 3. Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- i. “That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the compensation on account of the damage caused to the land, orchards and house of the petitioners to the tune of Rupees Once Crores. ii. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to take immediate action/steps to save the life and property by constructing the retaining walls in the damaged land, orchard and house areas so that the petitioners and their family members can live peacefully and earn their livelihood. 2 iii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to take immediate steps to clear all the culverts and construct permanent drainage system where land and house of the petitioners are situated. iv. That the respondent may kindly be directed to submit the damage report from the revenue authorities by visiting the spot so that immediate relief can be granted to the petitioners for their sustenance during this winter season. V. That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. v. That the respondents may kindly be burdened with heavy cost for their sheer negligence and dereliction of their constitutional duties in saving the life and property of the petitioners and their family members.” 2. On the previous date, this Court had appointed a Local Commissioner to ascertain the factual position on the spot, who has done the needful. 3. Therefore, in the light of the report of the Local Commissioner as well as the response filed thereto, these proceedings are disposed of with the direction that the petitioners shall meet the Executive Engineer and they will arrive at a consensus with regard to the work that has to be executed. Upon the consensus so arrived at, the work shall be executed by the Public Works Department. It is clarified that the petitioners shall not create any impediment in the execution of the work as 3 learned Additional Advocate on instructions has submitted that the petitioners are obstructing the lying down of a culvert. As far as the allegation of the State that the petitioners are encroachers etc., is concerned, this Court is not dwelling upon the same in this petition and suffice to say that the parties should address the issue that has been raised by the petitioners with an open mind. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 18, 2025 (Vinod)