IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2046 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.11.2011 Mai Devi ………. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. ………. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) That Writ of mandamus may be issued directing the Respondent to acquire the land of the petitioner and award the compensation and the compensation in respect to the land may been granted to the petitioner as discrimination has been done with the petitioner, as the land of the other similarly situated land owner has been acquired and the compensation in respect to their land have been granted to them. b) That the entire record pertaining to the case may be called for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. c) Any such other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the given set of circumstances may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. In the reply, respondents have stated as under:- “ That the contents of para No.3 of the petition is denied only a portion of suit land had been occupied by replying respondents for construction of road which comes 0-06-74 hectare and Tatima of the spot prepared by the patwari attached here as annexure R-1 which shows the portion under neath the road. The petitioner is not going to become a landless, as the rest of the land will remain in the ownership of the petitioner which comes as 0-18-38 hectare. The petitioner is not cultivating the suit land in any manner and land is barren on the spot nor it was cleared break up or make it fit for cultivation by any of the person or petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the revenue papers which are under process and which is likely to be issue the notifications under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and the petitioner will be compensated in accordance with the law in due process. That the contents of the para No.4 of the petition are denied. The proceedings for the acquisition of the land for “Taklech, Darkali road” is under process and the question of discrimination is baseless. The reply to the notice served upon by the replying respondents was replied which is attached as Annexure R-3.” (Emphasis supplied) 3. It is thus, clear that respondents of their own have decided to initiate acquisition proceedings. Consequently, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the State to complete the entire process of acquisition, in accordance with law, within the statutory period. Action shall positively be initiated within a period 3 of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 4. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. 28th November, 2011 k.sharma