2025:HHC:29085-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1010 of 2019 Decided on: 28.08.2025 Panchar Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. C.D. Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No.20528 of 2025 In view of the averments made therein, present application, seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and disposed of. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to acquire the land of ODAY the petitioner comprised in Khewat No 147/143, Khatauni No 324/324 Khasra No. 1374, measuring 00-22-80 hectares and 17 Khatauni No. 325/325, Khasra No 1373, measuring 00-01-32 hectares, 1375 measuring 00-00-79 hectares and Khasra No. 1376 measuring 00-00-16 hectares, situated at Mohal Kamroo 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29085-DB Khas, Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur, H.P., in accordance with the provisions of law and pay adequate compensation in lieu thereof as per the market value of the land to the petitioner.” 3. In terms of the reply filed by the respondents, the stand taken therein, inter alia, is that the land in question was once part of khasra No.1100 before the Settlement Operation, which took place in the year 1980 and as of now, as stands determined by way of demarcation conducted on 08.08.2019, Animal Husbandry Department is in possession of khasra No.1374 alongwith other khasra numbers, which were all once part of old khasra No.1100. The possession of said khasra has been rightfully claimed by the Animal Husbandory Department in compliance to the announcement of the Award of acquisition of the particular land on 30.09.1965, after payment of compensation to Shri Shyam Singh, father of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refutes that any compensation was received by the father of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, the details of the amount in issue stand mentioned in the response filed by the State. 5. This Court is of the considered view that now as it becomes a disputed issue as to whether the amount was paid by the respondents and received by the father of the petitioner, the same 3 2025:HHC:29085-DB cannot be decided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because for the said purpose in order to establish the respective case of the parties they obviously will have to lead evidence. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 28, 2025 (Rishi)