1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8205 of 2026 Decided on: 25.05.2026 Hansi Devi …..Petitioner Versus The Project Director and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Pursuant to the notice issued to respondents No. 1 & 2, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has placed on record spot inspection report dated 30.05.2026 in form of instructions from the respondents alongwith appended photographs and submits that aforesaid instructions (spot inspection report) be treated as the stand of the respondents to this writ petition. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that her residential house is located at land adjoining to National Highway(NH)-17 at Village Hukkal, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. Petitioner was also owner of a cowshed and one industrial structure over the land which has been 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 acquired by the respondent-Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for widening/upgrading work of NH-17. During execution of aforesaid works of NH-17, respondents carried out heavy excavation, cutting and removed lateral support to the residential house of the petitioner in an unscientific manner which caused extensive damage to the petitioner’s property that has not been acquired for the widening/upgradation of National Highway. According to the petitioner, even though, respondents had assured carrying out of necessary development/protection works by erecting retaining/ protection wall near her house yet the respondents have not abided by their assurance. Hence, the grievance. 3. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents has placed on record spot inspection report to the effect that: (i) Petitioner house is situated beyond the approved Right of Way (ROW), which is approximately 10-11 meters away from the boundary of the project. (ii) Upon site inspection, no damage attributable to the NH construction activities was observed in the residential structure. Petitioner’s allegations regarding structural damage due to project construction could not be substantiated during inspection. According to the respondents, cutting/excavation in the land adjoining to the 3 petitioner’s house had been carried out by the petitioner herself within her private land. No cutting or excavation work outside the approved ROW was even executed by the EPC (Engineering Procurement Contract) Contractor. (iii) EPC contractor was appointed on 14.11.2023 and no construction work under the EPC contract was carried out prior to the said date. Leaned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that as against this, petitioner’s son Sh. Rakesh Sharma had complained about damages to the petitioner’s property in the year 2022 as reflected at Annexure P-1 dated 05.08.2022. Certain other objections have also been taken by the respondents in the aforesaid office instructions viz. protection works and land development/restoration prayed for by the petitioner falling outside the approved ROW and not forming part of scope of work under the EPC project; That project construction activities have been executed within the approved project limits in accordance with approved drawings, specifications and contractual provisions. Photographs of the site have also been placed on record alongwith spot inspection report. 4. The case as projected by the petitioner and the stand of the respondents reflected in the office instructions/ spot inspection report make it apparent that there are factual disputes on the issue raised by the petitioner adjudication of which is not possible in this writ petition. In 4 view of disputed questions of facts, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted in this writ petition. Accordingly, petition to stand disposed of with liberty reserved for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 25, 2026 Judge yogesh