IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 3874 of 2025 Decided on 25th March 2025 Hira Lal and another …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. Rajneesh Maniktala, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. Dhruv Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) “That the respondents may be directed to release the compensation assessed for acquisition of their land acquired by the respondents acquired bearing Khata No.62, Khatauni No.84, Khasra No.1004/29, measuring 09-07-12 hectares situated at Mohal Belu- Dhank, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Prdesh amounting to Rs.2,94,77,512/- to petitioner No.1. (ii) That alternatively, this Hon’ble Court comes to conclusion otherwise, the respondents may be directed to release the aforesaid compensation for acquisition of land in favour of petitioner No.2. 2 (iii) That the respondents may be restrained from taking forcible possession of the land bearing Khata No.62, Khatauni No.84, Khasra No.1004/29, measuring 09- 07-12 hectares situated at Mohal Belu Dhank, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh till the compensation so assessed by respondents is paid to the petitioners.” 2. When the case was listed on 20.03.2025, the following order was passed:- “Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Dhruv Thakur, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and respondents No.3 and 4, respectively. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are not being paid the compensation in lieu of the acquisition of their land on the alleged ground that there is a violation of Section 11(4) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, whereas, there is no violation because no transaction whatsoever has taken place of the suit property as after date of the publication of notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the preliminary notification dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P-3) as well as Gazette notification Annexure P-4 dated 19.02.2021 and has submitted that as the preliminary notification dated 19.01.2021 was actually published in the official gazette only on 19.02.2021, therefore, the date of publication has to be construed as 19.02.2021. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that no 3 transaction qua the suit property has taken place after 19.02.2021. The gift that took place was before 19.02.2021 and, therefore, the ground of which the compensation is being refused is totally flimsy. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 has submitted that said respondents do not have any issue with regard to the disbursement of the acquisition amount, but then, petitioners have to spell out as to intra them, who is to receive the acquisition amount and if both of them have to receive acquisition amount then in what proportion. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the case be taken up on 25.03.2025, so that appropriate instructions in this regard can be obtained in the meanwhile. Mr. Dhruv Thakur, also undertakes to file his power of Attorney on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 before the next date of hearing. Registry is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Dhruv Thakur, as learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 in the cause list, henceforth.” 3. Thereafter, alongwith CMP No.5085 of 2025, which application is taken on record, an affidavit has been filed by one of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Hem Singh to the effect that the entire compensation amount be deposited/released in favour of his brother Sh. Hira Lal i.e. petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the affidavit as also the contents of the 4 application, this application be disposed of with the direction that let the entire compensation be released in favour of Sh. Hira Lal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 submits that needful will be done within two weeks from today; however, after the release of the compensation, no impediment should be created by the petitioners in the course of the construction of the project in issue. Learned counsel for the petitioners assures this fact. 5. In light of these developments, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that let the entire compensation amount as is payable to the petitioners in lieu of the acquisition of their land be paid by releasing the same in favour of petitioner No.1 Sh. Hira Lal. It is further directed that needful be done within a period of two weeks from today. After the payment of the compensation amount no impediment shall be created by the petitioners in the execution of the work in issue. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 25, 2025 (Vinod)