IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Pet. No.404 of 2024 Decided on: 24th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paras Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks implementation of the directions issued in Paras Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with following operative directions:- “7. Consequently, in view of discussion made herein above, this court finds that the relief sought for in the instant petition, stands granted to the petitioner, as such, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.6 to complete the construction work of road in question forthwith, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. Needless to say, respondent No.6 before taking up construction work shall abide by the conditions imposed by Forest 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 CWP No.1958 of 2022, decided on 21.08.2023 2 Department in NOC dated 20.7.2023. Any obstruction caused by encroachers in the construction of road in question, shall be viewed seriously and they would render themselves liable for penal action as well as for contempt of court. Learned Additional Advocate General is also directed to ensure that funds, if not, already provided to respondent No.6, be provided, enabling it to complete the work within stipulated period.” 2. Respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, Kullu in the reply filed to the execution petition, has pleaded that the sanctioned amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the construction of road from Yuvak Mandal Bhawan to Narial Behar (approximately 130 meters) has been utilized. The construction/repair work of the road leading from Yuvak Mandal Bhawan to Narial Behar has been completed. The petitioner, in reality, desires the construction of road for further 20 meters upto the house of one Sh. Naresh Kumar. However, there is dispute amongst the villagers for the aforesaid construction. The villagers have raised objections on further construction of the road. The concerned Gram Panchayat-respondent No.5 has also passed a resolution on 02.05.2024 for not proceeding with further construction due to protest by the villagers. 3. Since the respondents have completed the construction/repair work of the road from Yuvak Mandal Bhawan to Narial Behar (approximately 130 meters), it cannot be said that the judgment has not been 3 implemented. In fact, while directing the respondents to complete the construction work of the road in question in Paras Ram’s2 case, the Court had also taken note of the stand of the respondents that the total length of the road was 130 meters and it was to be constructed from Yuvak Mandal Bhawan to Narial Behar. Relevant paras in this regard are as under:- “2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite there being availability of funds, no steps are being taken by respondent No.6 to construct/repair road from Yuva Mandal Bhawan to Narhail Bihad. 4. Respondent No.1 to 5 have categorically stated in their reply that to resolve dispute, demarcation was carried out and it was found that some land belonging to Forest Department falls within the alignment. It has been further stated in the reply, and as is evident from site inspection report (Annexure R-1) that the site was inspected on 16.11.2022. Total length was found to be 130 metre and concrete work of road has been done from RD 0/0 to 50 metre and 80 metre work is balance at site. Since, road was closed with barbed wire at 50 metre RD by encroachers, respondent No.6 was unable to complete the work.” 4. Taking note of the stand of the respondents, as noticed in Paras Ram’s2 case, the directions issued therein and the admitted fact that the respondents have now constructed/repaired the road from Yuvak Mandal Bhawan to Narial Behar, it has to be held that the respondents have complied with the judgment. Petitioner’s surviving grievances are in respect of further construction of road 4 upto the house of one Sh. Naresh Kumar, who is incidentally his son. Since there was no direction in Paras Ram’s2 case to the respondents to raise the construction of road upto the house of aforesaid Sh. Naresh Kumar and even otherwise also, there appears to be some grievances of the villagers about constructing the road upto the house of Sh. Naresh Kumar, the respondents have accordingly not raised any construction. The execution petition to stand disposed of accordingly alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Petitioner is, however, at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of his surviving grievances. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 24, 2025 Judge Mukesh