2026:HHC:25662 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9649 of 2024 Decided on: 30th June, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surat Singh and another …..Petitioners Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: None for respondent No.1. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 3. None for respondents No.4 to 9. Sh. Balkrishan, Tehsildar Sadar, District Bilaspur and Sh. Suman Kumar, Patwari Badhyat, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, present in person alongwith record. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioners are sons, proforma respondents No.4 to 8 are daughters and petitioner No.9 is wife of late Sh. Nikka Ram S/o Sh. Masadi. Petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus for releasing 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:25662 due and payable compensation to them as also to respondents No.4 to 9 qua land measuring 1-13 bighas comprised in Khasra No.262/234/129/1, situated at Village Badhyat, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur. 2. Heard learned counsel on both sides, considered the case file as also the record produced by the respondents-State. 3. From the pleadings, documents on record as also the record produced today, it emerges that:- 3(i). Application was made by Sh. Nikka Ram S/o Sh. Masadi for allotment of land in his favour under Landless Scheme on 21.11.1978, projecting himself to be a landless person ousted by his father years ago. After following the prescribed procedure, Sh. Nikka Ram and his brother-Sh. Sant Ram were allotted land comprised in Khasra Nos.141/2 and 141/1, respectively, each plot measuring 3-10 bighas in Village Badhyat, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur under the Himachal Pradesh Grant of Nautor Land to Landless and Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975 by the Tehsildar Sadar, District Bilaspur vide orders dated 26.06.1979 and 25.06.1979, respectively. This petition concerns the land allotment to Sh. Nikka Ram, hence, reference hereinafter will be made only pertaining to 3 2026:HHC:25662 Sh. Nikka Ram. Since the above-described land had already been sanctioned in favour of one Smt. Rattani Devi in the year 1977, hence, sanction of the land comprised in Khasra No.141/2 to Sh. Nikka Ram was cancelled. 3(ii). Against the cancellation of grant, Sh. Nikka Ram filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. The appeal was dismissed on 24.08.1981. Against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, Sh. Nikka Ram filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, who vide order dated 31.03.1983, remanded the case back to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur for afresh decision. After considering the matter afresh, the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur passed the order on 31.12.1985 with direction to the Tehsildar Sadar to allot alternate land parcels to Sh. Nikka Ram and his brother Sh. Sant Ram under the Landless Scheme. 3(iii). Against the above order, Sh. Nikka Ram filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The same was dismissed on 25.10.1986. Sh. Nikka Ram next filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh. The revision petition was also dismissed on 16.02.1989 with the observation that ‘petitioner will however have some consolation inasmuch as 4 2026:HHC:25662 that the Tehsildar Sadar had already been directed to allot alternative lands to him under the Nautor Scheme’. 3(iv). Apparently, alternate land was not allotted to Sh. Nikka Ram. With this grievance, he filed miscellaneous application before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, seeking the relief that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur on 31.12.1985 be got implemented by allotting alternate land in his favour. In the process of deciding the miscellaneous application, report was sought from the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), who reported availability of some alternate land in the area, but the same being recorded as ‘Charand Jungal Dehat’ and in ownership & possession of the State of Himachal Pradesh. As per the report, the land could be allotted only after the approval of the Government of India as Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was applicable on the land. The District Attorney (Revenue) contended in the said case that no alternate land is available, therefore, the applicants (Sh. Nikka Ram and his brother Sh. Sant Ram) could not be granted any land. On considering the respective stands of the parties, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh vide order dated 29.07.2008 held that the land had been ordered to be 5 2026:HHC:25662 allotted to the applicants (S/Sh. Nikka Ram and Sant Ram) after ascertaining their entitlement. Pattas of allotted land had also been granted to them and mutations had been sanctioned after payment of nazrana. Though the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur had directed the Tehsildar Sadar, District Bilaspur to allot alternate land to the applicants vide order dated 31.12.1985, but this direction did not materialize. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to implement the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 31.12.1985 by allotting suitable land parcels to the applicants as they had been allotted the land earlier and had also deposited nazrana after issuance of pattas and attestation of mutation in their favour. Relevant portion of the order dated 29.07.2008 reads as under:- “After due consideration of the facts of these two cases, I find that land had been allotted to the applicants after ascertaining their entitlement. Pattas of the allotted land had also been granted to them and mutations had also been sanctioned after payment of ‘nazrana’. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur had directed the Tehsildar, Sadar to allot alternate land to the applicants vide order dated 31.12.1985 but nothing material has arisen from the same till date. It would be appropriate that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is implemented and the applicants are allotted suitable land as they had been so allotted earlier and had deposited ‘nazrana’ and also been issued ‘pattas’ and mutations attested. Hence the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur is directed to locate suitable alternate land which can be allotted to the applicants. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur dated 31.12.1985 should be fully implemented 6 2026:HHC:25662 in letter and in spirit. If approval of Government of India is required, the same may be obtained. These applications are accordingly disposed of.” 3(v). Evidently, alternate land as directed by the revenue authorities was not allotted to Sh. Nikka Ram. He thus preferred CMPMO No.437 of 2022, seeking directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to comply with the order dated 31.12.1985. According to the respondents, in the said CMPMO, Sh. Nikka Ram had claimed his possession over Khasra Nos.263/256/141 (05 bighas) and 298/276/141/1 (3-5 bighas). The said CMPMO was decided on 13.09.2022 with direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to comply with the order dated 31.12.1985. 3(vi). Pursuant to the above order, the Tehsildar Sadar, District Bilaspur vide order dated 14.07.2023, sanctioned land comprised in Khasra No.113/102/97/92/69/1, measuring 3-10 bighas to Sh. Nikka Ram, besides sanctioning land measuring 3-10 bighas comprised in Khasra No.113/102/97/92/69/2 in favour of Sh. Sant Ram at Mohal Changer Palasian, Patwar Circle Rajpura, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur. The allotment was not accepted by S/Sh. Nikka Ram and Sant Ram. Thereafter, Tehsildar Sadar, District Bilaspur on 22.07.2023, sanctioned land comprised in Khasra 7 2026:HHC:25662 No.262/254/129/1, measuring 1-13 bighas and Khasra No.298/276/141/2, measuring 1-17 bighas, total area 3-10 bighas in favour of Sh. Nikka Ram/his successors-in- interest (present petitioners). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has invited specific attention to this sanction order, in terms of which, the petitioners/their predecessor-in-interest (Sh. Nikka Ram) were already in possession of the afore- described land, more particularly Khasra No.298/276/141/2, measuring 1-17 bighas. It was submitted that petitioners/their predecessor-in-interest were in possession of this number for years together. It appears that on the basis of this sanction order, mutation No.712 was attested on 22.07.2023 itself, however, while attesting the mutation, instead of Khasra No.262/254/129/1, measuring 1-13 bighas, that was sanctioned for allotment in favour of Sh. Nikka Ram/present petitioners, the actual khasra number that found way in the mutation was 262/234/129/1. 3(vii). It needs to be noticed here that under the sanction order dated 22.07.2023, two khasra numbers were allotted to the petitioners, i.e. 262/254/129/1 (1-13 bighas) and 298/276/141/2 (1-17 bighas), total area 3-10 bighas. 8 2026:HHC:25662 Though Khasra No.298/276/141/2, measuring 1-17 bighas, was correctly entered in the consequent mutation No.712, attested on 22.07.2023, but as noticed earlier, while recording the description of second khasra number, inadvertently, in place of sanctioned Khasra No.262/254/129/1, the number that found its way in the mutation was 262/234/129/1. On coming to know about this error, mutation No.712 was reviewed under order dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure R-2) and allotment of the other khasra number, i.e. 262/234/129/1, in petitioners’ favour was cancelled. 3(viii). Apparently, as is evident from the pleadings on record, Khasra No.262/234/129/1, measuring 1-13 bigha, had already been diverted/transferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh on 23.12.2021 in favour of Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Chandigarh for construction of Bhanupalli- Bilaspur-Berri New Rail Line, Phase-III, from Kilometers 38.300 to 52.015. This number measures 19-14 bighas of forest land, which stands diverted in favour of Rail Vikas Nigam Limited. In lieu of diversion, Rail Vikas Nigam Limited had also deposited a sum of Rs.1,81,54,323/- on account of Net Present Value (NPV) with the Forest Department prior to 10.08.2021. 9 2026:HHC:25662 4. In the background of above factual position, the submission made for the petitioners is that the petitioners were in possession of the land allotted in their favour as sanctioned to them under mutation dated 22.07.2023, therefore, once 1-13 bigha out of 3-10 bighas of land allotted in their favour has been diverted in favour of Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, then proportionate share out of the Net Present Value charges deposited by the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited with the Forest Department is required to be paid to the petitioners as compensation qua their land taken over by the respondents for construction of the rail line. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the detailed factual background already recorded above. The petitioners had been sanctioned land comprised in Khasra Nos.262/254/129/1 (measuring 1-13 bighas) and 298/276/141/2 (measuring 1-17 bighas). It is the case of the petitioners that they had been in possession of Khasra No.298/276/141/2 all throughout. There is no document on record to establish petitioners’ possession over the other khasra number. It is quite obvious that mutation No.712, attested on 22.07.2023 on the basis of sanction order of the even date, had incorrectly and inadvertently allotted 10 2026:HHC:25662 different khasra numbers to the petitioners than intended in terms of the sanction order dated 22.07.2023. Under the mutation, though one of the sanctioned khasra number remained the same, i.e. 298/276/141/2 (1-17 bighas), but the other khasra number was somehow changed and it became Khasra No.262/234/129/1, measuring 1-13 bighas instead of Khasra No.262/254/129/1. Petitioners’ claim in this writ petition for seeking compensation is qua diversion of Khasra No.262/234/129/1 in favour of Rail Vikas Nigam Limited for construction of Bhanupalli-Bilaspur-Berri New Rail Line, however, the fact remains that this khasra number, i.e. 262/234/129/1, neither remained in their possession ever nor was sanctioned in their favour even under the sanction order dated 22.07.2023. The error that crept in mutation No.712 was ordered to be rectified under order dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure R-2). Further, the amount that has been deposited by the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited was not the value of the land, but the Net Present Value (NPV), as the land comprised in Khasra No.262/234/129/1 was not acquired by the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, rather, this was the forest land that was diverted in accordance with law in favour of the Rail Vikas 11 2026:HHC:25662 Nigam Limited for construction of Bhanupalli-Bilaspur- Berri New Rail Line. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the claim of the petitioners seeking proportionate share in the Net Present Value deposited by the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited in view of diversion of Khasra No.262/234/129/1, therefore, is misconceived. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, respondent No.3-the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur is directed to ensure that appropriate orders are passed in accordance with law consequent upon the review of Mutation No.712, for allotting and completing the left out area measuring 1-13 bighas in favour of the petitioners, preferably in near vicinity/adjoining to land comprised in Khasra No.298/276/141/2, measuring 1-17 bighas, situated at Village Badhyat, Post Office Bamta, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, which has already been allotted to them. This exercise be completed within six weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 30, 2026 Judge Mukesh