IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 374 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.10.2010 Sada Ram Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and another Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. B.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. This petition is directed against the judgement of the learned District Judge dated 3.9.2010 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner (here-in- after referred to as the plaintiff) and upheld the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bilaspur, dated 10.5.2010 rejecting the application moved by the plaintiff for grant of interim relief. 2. The undisputed facts are that a Atta Chakki and a latrine belonging to the plaintiff were acquired by the respondents for construction of the Kol Dam. It is also not disputed that compensation for this has been paid to the plaintiff. It appears that there was a scheme framed by the authorities that if a person is rendered 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 homeless on account of the acquisition of his property then such person would be entitled to some other relief also. The undisputed facts are that initially the name of the petitioner-plaintiff was placed in the list of homeless persons. The grievance of the petitioner is that without any notice to him and without following process of law his name has been removed from the list of the homeless persons and in the suit the main relief prayed is that the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, whereby the name of the plaintiff has been removed from the list of homeless persons is illegal, wrong and without jurisdiction. 3. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 in which the main prayer made was that during pendency of the suit the latrine and the Atta Chakki should not be demolished and possession should not be taken over. Both the Courts below have decided this application against the plaintiff. 4. In my view this relief cannot be granted to the plaintiff at this stage because indisputably the plaintiff has been compensated for the Atta Chakki and the latrine. The question whether the plaintiff is entitled to some other benefits also and whether he falls in the list of homeless persons has to be decided in the main suit after evidence is led by the parties. The whole project 3 of the dam cannot be stayed on this ground. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. 5. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the short question involved which is whether the plaintiff has been rendered homeless or not, I feel that it is a fit case where a direction should be issued to the learned trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as possible. The suit was filed in the year 2007 and I am told that it is fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. A direction is issued to the learned trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as possible and in any event not later than 30th September, 2011. 27th October, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™