IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 131 of 2005 Date of decision: 08.12.2010. Nathu Ram . …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition has virtually become infructuous due to passage of time. The petitioner had filed a suit in the trial Court praying that a permanent injunction be granted in his favour and the respondent-State and its Officers be restrained from constructing any road over the land of the petitioner including the land comprised in Khasra No. 307. This suit was contested. The learned trial Court granted an interim order in favour of the plaintiff and restrained the State from interfering in any manner or from cutting and removing the trees or laying any sort of road over 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 the suit land except over Khasra No. 307. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order claiming that even over Khasra No. 307 the road could not have been permitted to be laid. This appeal has been dismissed. No stay order was granted during the pendency of these proceedings and therefore, the State by now has laid the road across Khasra No.307. Therefore, the petition has become infructuous. 2. Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the orders of this Court dated 5.8.2005, which reads as follows:- “Even though I am not at all inclined at this stage to grant any interim relief to the petitioner, I do direct the respondents to ensue that in the reply that they file to CMP No.215 of 2005 they shall in clear and categorical terms inform the Court about the steps that the respondents have taken with respect to the acquisition of the land forming the subject matter of the suit as well as paying adequate compensation to the petitioner. Depending on the contents of the reply, on the next date this Court may refuse to grant injunction and dismiss the petition or may actually grant the injunction and allow the petition.” 3 3. He submits that even at this stage the State can be directed to acquire the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No. 307. 4. I am afraid that such a direction cannot be issued in these proceedings as even in the main suit no such prayer had been made. Therefore, either the petitioner has to amend his plaint in the trial Court or file any other appropriate proceedings. It is for the petitioner to decide which course of action is best for him. With these observations the petition is disposed of having become infructuous. In case the petitioner files an application for amendment of the suit, the same shall not be rejected on the ground of delay alone since the petitioner has been prosecuting his case before this Court. No order as to costs. 8th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Jud`ge