IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2212 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.05.2010 __________________________________________________________ Mahu and another. ….Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. K.R. Kashyap, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1 to 4: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent No. 5: Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petition is that both of them have gifted a portion of their land to State for the purpose of construction of road which was to serve the entire village community at large and for its betterment. About 21 trees had fallen during the construction of the road, which fact stands acknowledged by the revenue authorities, but the petitioners have not been compensated for value of the trees. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2 2. The contention of the petitioners further is that the Forest Corporation which has a monopoly of dealing in the sale and purchase of timber has not proceeded to auction the timber, because as per orders passed by this Court, there is a complete ban on sale of timber etc. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General places reliance on gift deed dated 29th March, 2006 Annexure R-1 to urge that according to the recitals made therein the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation as the land had given to the State free of all encumbrances. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trees were to be vest in the petitioners and not in the State. I do not wish to comment anything on the recitals in the gift deed Annexure R-1. It will be open to the petitioners to establish their claim by filing a civil suit in accordance with law, for which purposes the time spent in pursuing this Writ Petition in this count will obviously be not counted for the purpose of limitation. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. I have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioners otherwise. There shall be no order as to costs. May 19, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge