2025:HHC:4082 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2879 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Moti Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though similarly situate persons, whose land was also acquired for defence purposes, have been paid compensation, but despite repeated representations, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is not being considered. 2. While referring to the representation filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-4), learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) on similar lines as has been done in the case of other similarly situate persons, as detailed in Annexure P-2 & P-3. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order, taking note of the fact that similar situate persons have already been provided land for residential purposes in terms of Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme. March 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2