2026:HHC:30230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.926 of 2019 Decided on : 21 st July, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________ Bhuvneshwar Chander ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Lokendar Paul Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.4 and 5. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “(I) That a writ in nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner equivalent to the amount spent by him for raising retaining wall i.e. 5,96,157/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from July, 2018 till realization, and also pay compensation for the mental pain 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and agony suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the respondents.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner owns a residential house on Khasra No.719, situated in Village Jateher, Post Office Katrain, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. The said khasra number was in a joint ownership and some of the portion thereof was acquired by respondent No.2 for construction of National Highway/four- lane. After acquiring the part of Khasra No.719, respondent No.2 started construction of National Highway, which abuts the residential house of the petitioner and due to excavation work, the residential house of the petitioner being on the edge of the National Highway, came under danger of collapsing. It has also been averred that on the persistent demand of the petitioner, respondent No.2 raised three metres high retaining wall in front of the house of the petitioner, however, to save the house, the petitioner had to raise retaining wall upto eight metres height in front of his house. The petitioner has also placed on record the 3 photographs (Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-4), which clearly show that a house is existing above the road and a retaining wall has been constructed. It has been averred that the petitioner has spent an amount of Rs. 5,96,157/- for raising of the retaining wall since respondent No.2 had only raised wall up to three metres. 3. Respondents No.2 and 3 filed reply to the petition and did not dispute the construction of three metres height of retaining wall by them, which was required. It has been averred that there was no requirement to raise the height of retaining wall of eight metres. Respondents No.2 and 3 have not disputed the photographs placed on record by the petitioner. 4. Respondents No.4 and 5 have also filed reply to the petition and admitted that the building of the petitioner stands on Khasra No.719/2. However, the said Khasra number is outside the alignment of the road and has not been acquired for widening of the four-lane. It has also been admitted that respondent No.2 had raised three metres high 4 retaining wall in front of the house of the petitioner, but the petitioner wanted to raise a retaining wall of eight metres height in front of his house, so that, the same could be saved from collapsing. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 and controverted the facts. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the State Government has issued Notification dated 08.06.2020, whereby a committee has been constituted to resolve and sort out all issues including the issues of assessing the damage caused to private land, buildings and structures beyond Right of Way (in short “RoW”) due to construction of four-lane projects of respondent No.2 in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 8. Once the State Government has constituted a committee to look into the grievances of the affected persons, without going into the merits of the case, it would 5 be in the interest of the parties to direct the committee to look into the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition and take decision after hearing the parties. This Court otherwise has also very limited powers to assess the compensation and also to determine whether the retaining wall ought to have been constructed as pleaded in the writ petition. 9. The petitioner, immediately after constructing three metres height of retaining wall by respondent No.2, which was sufficient as per respondent No.2 and there was no requirement to raise the height of retaining wall to eight metres in height, as claimed by respondents No.2 and 3, had increased the height of the retaining wall to protect his house and thereafter immediately approached this Court in the year 2019 and the matter was pending for the last more than 7 years and, thus the committee is directed to look into the matter and take final decision within a time bound manner. 10. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the committee, constituted as per the 6 Notification dated 08.06.2020, issued by the Principal Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to look into the grievances of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after associating/hearing the petitioner as well as officers/officials of respondents No.2 and 3 within a period of three months from today. In case, the parties are aggrieved by the report, they may avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21 st July, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge