IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1750 of 2007 Decided on: 03.03.2010 Dhruv Singh Jamwal and another … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioners: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral): The crux of the allegations is that the 4th respondent Municipality has exchanged 0-4 Biswas of land belonging to the 5th respondent with another parcel land of the Municipality. It is also stated that in the process, injury has been caused to the public interest in the sense that in the place where the 4th respondent originally had, there were facilities for toilets for the public and these facilities are not available in the land so exchanged. There are other contentions regarding the process and procedure adopted for allotment. We find that the issue was the subject matter of another round of litigation leading to judgment CWP 2 No. 464/2006 wherein this Court had made it clear that it is open to the 5th respondent and others to claim compensation for the land taken from him by the Municipality or seek appropriate exchange. It is alleged in the petition that 5th respondent after the judgment applied for the same disputed land and the competent authority sanctioned the same. There is also allegation that the brother of 5th respondent was the Vice President of 4th respondent Municipality. Having extensively heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the learned Additional Advocate General, we find that this Court interfered with the process of exchange in the earlier judgment referred to above only on the ground of lack of sanction. The exchange has thereafter been duly approved by the competent authority. Therefore, that irregularity has now been corrected. As far as the public interest is concerned, we find from the affidavit of the Municipality that amenities have been provided by constructing toilets in the near vicinity. If there is any short-fall in that regard, the 4th respondent shall see that the interest of the public do not in any manner suffer in that regard. As far as the exchange of the land is concerned, we find from the reply affidavit that the land originally belonging to the 5th respondent abutted the National Highway, whereas one piece given to the 5th respondent is situated to Lower Dhalpur, apparently in a less important area. Be that as it may, as far as the petitioners are concerned, now that the legal contentions have been answered and the exchange having been duly made and since the Municipality has taken steps for providing amenities to the public, we do not find that this Court should keep this writ petition pending and 3 consider the same on other grounds. Suffice it to say that if there is any deficiency in the matter of providing amenities to the public, it will be open to the petitioner or the like minded citizens to bring the same to the notice of 1st respondent, on which 4th respondent shall take prompt action for providing necessary amenities to the public. In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of and so as the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 03, 2010 Judge (SDS/BSS) 4