IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9858 of 2024 Decided on: 11th September, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surinder Pal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Deputy Advocate General.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna R ewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive prayers:-

“I) The Writ of mandamus or Writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued to the respondents by directing them to deposit the compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner qua their shares vide order dated 07.08.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by Ld. Land

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes

Acquisition Collector cum Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)

Nalagarh, District Solan H.P.

II) The appropriate Writ order or directions may kindly be issued by directing the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector cum SDO (Civil) Nalagarh, District Solan H.P. to modify the order dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-6) to the extent that the file of the execution petition may not be consigned to the record room and action in accordance with order 21 rule 11 of CPC may kindly be taken against the respondents therein and the property of the respondents therein may be attached in accordance with law.

III) The appropriate Writ order or directions may kindly be issued to the respondents authorities to initiate the appropriate proceedings against the officials of the concerned departments for not complying the order dated 07.08.2020 (Annexure P-4) and order dated

12.03.2024 (Annexure P-6).”

4. The grievance of the petitioner as projected by his learned counsel is that the award passed in favour of the petitio ner on 07.08.2020 in his petition preferred under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act had not been satisfied, therefore, he had moved an application under Order 21 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for directing the respondents to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated 12.03.2024, directed the respondents to comply with the order dated 07.08.2020 within a period of thirty days, however, instead of keeping the file pending and alive, the same was consigned to record room. Hence, the grievance.

5. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, in my considered view, the grievance of the petitioner is justified. Since according to the petitioner, the enhanced amount of compensation in terms of order dated 07.08.2020 had not been deposited/paid, therefore, the case file could not have been consigned to frecord room. The application moved under Order 21 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC was required to be taken to its logical conclusion. Hence, for that reason alone, the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sub-Division Nalagarh, District Solan, to the limited extent it consigned the file to the record room, is quashed and set aside. The case file is ordered to be restored to its original number before the Land Acquisition Collector, Sub-Division Nalagarh, District Solan for taking the same to its logical conclusion in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 11, 2024