IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 327 of 2001. Date of Decision: 8th May, 2008. Sh. Prakash Singh Kanat …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer of ownership of land as described in the petition to him, on the same grounds, on which it was allotted to other persons whose names have been mentioned in Annexure P-3. In the alternative, a prayer is made that an appropriate writ, order or direction be passed against the respondents directing that 99 years lease be executed in favour of the petitioner. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Facts in details need not be noticed as during the pendency of the petition, Secretary (Revenue) has addressed a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra stating therein the factual position of allotment of the land regarding which the petitioner makes a grievance. By a communication dated 19th November, 2007, the Deputy Commissioner Kangra writes:- “From The Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, To The Pr. Secretary ( Revenue) Govt. of H.P. Shimla -2 No. 4298 ILRB Dated, Dharamshala 19th November, 2007. Subject: Representation of lease holders Welfare Association H.O. Depot Bazar, Dharamshala, H.P. Sir, Kindly refer to your office letter No. Rev. D (G) 6-2/2007-Vol. VII-Loose dated 9.10.2007 on the subject mentioned above. The matter regarding ‘Representation of Lease Holders Welfare Association H.O. Depot Bazar, Dharamshala, H.P. has been examined in detail. We have talked to the representatives of lease holders namely Shri Jugal Kishore Soni, Smt. Swarna Soni, Shri Sukh Dev Raj & Shri Prakash Sisngh. The main difficulty in operationlizing the order dated 9.10.2007 is that it has not been clarified as to what amount of lease money is to be charged w.e.f. 1.4.1991 till date. If market rate is changed it will be very high. It is, therefore, requested that a categorical order stating that the lease money to be charged from the - 3 - affected persons is full and final payment in terms of lease may kindly be issued. Keeping in view the fact that it is a very old case and involves a large number of people who deserve consideration of the Govt., therefore, a compassionate view of the whole matter needs to be taken and the amount to be charged should be as reasonable as possible. It is recommended that the lease money to be charged w.e.f. 1.4.1991 till date may be kept at the nominal rate which may be indicated along with approval of the Govt. which may kindly be conveyed at the earliest. Yours faithfully, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala.” This communication is not disputed. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed with the directions that the case of the petitioner will be considered in terms of the communications Nos. Rev. D ( C )6-2/2004-Vol-VI- dated 19.7.2007, Rev. D (G) 6- 2/2007 Vol-VII-Loose dated 9.10.2007 and communication dated 19th November, 2007 No. 4298 LRB. The grant will be made to the petitioner as envisaged by these communications. Of course, it goes without saying that whatever amount is fixed as consideration will be reasonable keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 8th May, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud), (cm) Judge.