2025:HHC:2256 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.701 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Maan Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for respondent No.1/Union of India. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may very kindly be allowed and writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to the following effect: - i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to immediately and forthwith allot a Murabba out of allotable pool / Murabas which are lying vacant in Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan In the alternative, in any eventuality, respondents may very kindly be directed to pay compensation for losses suffered by the petitioner for the last more than 50 years, particularly having been made landless and homeless in his own State and now for not allotting land to the petitioner despite directions of Hon'ble the Apex 2025:HHC:2256 -2- Court and furthermore, earlier allotting alternate land to the petitioner, for which even Najranas were deposited and huge amount was spent for making the same cultivable; ii) That yet in the alternative, directions may be given to the respondents to pay lump-sum amount as is deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court for above aspects, which the petitioner humbly and respectfully submits to the tune of Rs.10.00 Crores in present day set-up; iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the State of Rajasthan as well as State of Himachal Pradesh may kindly be directed to compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 6 Lacs per year for the loss crops.” 2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case she is permitted to make a representation, for redressal of her grievance, which may be directed to be considered in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, state that they are not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand taken by learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and learned Additional Advocate General, present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the respondents within a period of three weeks, for redressal of her grievance, which in-turn shall be 2025:HHC:2256 -3- decided by the competent authority, within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. January 09, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge