IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.924 of 2017 Decided on 27th August 2025 Khem Raj and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Bhim Raj, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2 and 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners inter alia, have prayed for the following reliefs:- 1. “That the petitioners be paid compensation for the land damages by the respondents NPHC. 2. That in the alternative damages land in question be acquired by the NHPC or land be repaired by removing the debris so that it becomes cultivable.” 2. When the case was heard on the last date, learned counsel for the NHPC pointed out that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands and had concealed the 2 material fact that they had already been compensated for the khasra numbers which are mentioned in Para-7 of the writ petition as was evident from Annexure R-2/B appended with the reply of NHPC. 3. In this backdrop on 20.08.2025, the following order was passed:- “During the course of hearing of this petition on merit today, learned counsel for the respondent- NHPC pointed out that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hand as the petitioner already stood compensated for the khasra numbers, which are mentioned in para-7 of the writ petition in terms of Annexure R-2/B appended with the reply much before the filing of this writ petition and these facts have been concealed by the petitioner from the Court. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted some time to have instructions in this regard. List on 27.08.2025.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though some payments have been received by the petitioners, but the same were under protest. 5. Be that as it may, fact of the matter remains that these facts were not disclosed by the petitioners when they approached the Court and further in light of the fact that the petitioners had already received certain compensation and 3 what is now being demanded by them is being disputed by the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that these issues cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, in case, the petitioners are so advised, they may pursue their remedy before the Civil Court by way of a Civil Suit. 6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Civil Court by way of a Civil Suit and it is observed that the time that has been spent by the petitioners while pursuing this remedy be taken into consideration by the learned Court concerned in the event the petitioners indeed file a Civil Suit within some reasonable time from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 27, 2025 (Vinod)