Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9287 (HP)

KAVI RAJ AND ANR v. STATE OF HP AND ORS

CWP/3082/2022 · 2025-07-07

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:21491-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 3082 of 2022 Decided on : 07.07.2025 Kavi Raj Negi and another. …Petitioners Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. O.P. Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vikas Mishra, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “i) That writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners as per the provisions of the Right to Fir Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:21491-DB Rehabilitation and Settlement Act 2013 and to make the payment in terms of compromise/negotiation done between the petitioners and respondents.” 2. When this case was listed on 03.04.2023, the following order was passed:- “The controversy involved in the present petition is in a very narrow compass. According to the petitioners, their land was damaged in the course of construction of a project by respondent No.4, in District Kinnaur, H.P. In order to assess the damages suffered by the petitioners, a Negotiation Committee was constituted, which was headed by SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Sub Division Kalpa, District Kinnaur, H.P. The proceedings of the Meeting of said Committee are appended with the petition as Annexure P/8. It was agreed in terms of the Minutes of said Committee that uniform rate of Rs.6,500/ per square metre will be paid by respondent No.4 for the shop and other structures which stood damaged in the course of construction of the project in issue. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the fact that the rates stood negotiated as far back as in January, 2021, till date no compensation is paid to them. 3 2025:HHC:21491-DB Mr. Vikas Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 has submitted that the proposal to pay negotiated rate to the petitioners has been sent by the respondents to the State Government, but as till date no approval from the State Government has been received, therefore, the amount amount could not be paid to the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that once, the rate was finalized between the parties by way of negotiations, it is not understood as to what kind of approval the respondent/Corporation required from the State Government for compensating the petitioners. Be that as it may, without making any observation with regard to the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties, the case is ordered to be listed after two weeks, with direction to learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions in the matter.” 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5 on instructions submits that the Power Corporation is willing to purchase the land in issue at the negotiated rate of Rs. 6500/- per square meter. 4. In the light of the statement so made by learned 4 2025:HHC:21491-DB counsel for respondents No.4 & 5, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the land in issue be purchased by Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., at the negotiated uniform rate of Rs. 6500/- per square meter, by executing a sale deed, within a period of three months from today and in this regard, if any, permissions etc. are required from the State Government then the State Government may also facilitate the same, taking into consideration the fact that the land in issue is situated in tribal area. It goes without saying that the sale consideration shall be forthwith paid to the petitioner, upon the execution/registration of the sale deed. 5. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 07, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)