1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2375/2026 Decided on: 03.03.2026 Kamaljeet 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. R.L Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- (i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to realize/pay the verified claim of ₹7,36,813/- in terms of the certificate issued by the Department of Rehabilitation to the Government of India on 18.05.1961 (Annexure P-20) within a time bound manner, since the said verified claim is not a mercy or any grant, but it is in lieu of the property which Late Shri Mehal Singh, the predecessor of the petitioners, left in Pakistan during partition of the country in the year 1947 and migrated alongwith his family to India with the hope that he will get justice in India. (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 05.08.2025 (Annexure P-24) within a time bound manner by taking into consideration the certificate issued the Rehabilitation department to the Government of India dated 18.05.1961 as well as by taking into 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 consideration the enactments i.e. Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 and the Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and also the Indemnity Bond sought by the Government of India dated 10.05.1958 from the predecessor of the petitioners i.e. Late Shri Mehal Singh. (iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issue,d directing the respondents to allot land in terms of the then enactments i.e. Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 and The Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 for rehabilitation of the family of Late Shri Mehal Singh, since Late Shri Mehal Singh in the year 1947 migrated from Pakistan to India being a Sikh family with the hope that they will get justice in India, but till today, neither Late Shri Mehal Singh nor their predecessors nor petitioners have been provided land in any part of the country for their rehabilitation, only one murraba was approved and sanctioned in Ramdas Pind in Punjab, but the possession of the same was not handed over to the petitioner or their predecessors as a result of civil disturbances in the country and the said land was never mutated in the names of the petitioners or their predecessors, whereas other migrants from Pakistan in the year 1947, were provided land for their rehabilitation, hence, the petitioners and their predecessors were also entitled for the same and similar treatment.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners had repeatedly represented to respondents including respondents No. 1 & 2 for redressal of their grievances, however, no decision thereupon was ever communicated to them. Attention was invited to representations dated 01.05.1995 (Annexure P-22), 25.03.2011 ( Annexure P-23) and 5.08.2025 (Annexure P- 24). Learned counsel submits that petitioners would be satisfied in case, respondents No. 1 & 2/Competent Authority is directed to consider the representations of the 3 petitioners and take it to logical conclusion by deciding the same in accordance with law within a time bound schedule. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 does not object the above prayer and submits that all rights and contentions of the parties be left open. 4. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondents No. 1 & 2/Competent Authority to consider and decide the petitioners’ above representations in accordance with law within a time frame of twelve weeks. It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open including objection of delay, laches and acquiescence if any. The decision so taken by respondents be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 03, 2026 Judge yogesh