Usha Rani v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. _ For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 6-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus costar Commanding the respondent authorities to take immediate and effective action against the illegal construction being carried out by respondent No. 7 on Khasra No. 660 and 661 situated in Tikka Sujanpur, Moujza Baleth, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., and to demolish the said unauthorized construction. ii) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 authorities to enforce the notice dated 07.01.2025 issued under Section 39 of Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 by respondent No. 6 against respondent No.7. iii) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order o Direction in the nature of Mandamus to respondents No. 1 and 4 to initiate appropriate legal proceedings againg respondents No. 7 and 8 for violation of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. iv) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent No. 5 to provide adequate security to the petitioner and her husband in view of the threats issued by respondent No.

v) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order of Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the unauthorized construction raised by respondent No. 7 on the ground of it being in violation of statutory provisions and posing danger to the life and property of the petitioner. vi) Award compensatory damages to the petitioner for the structural damage caused to her property due to the illegal construction by respondent No. 7 and the inaction 3 of the respondent authorities.”

Primarily, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the construction that is being carried out by respondent No.7, purportedly in a manner which has created danger to the house of the petitioner. It is also the allegation of the petitioner that the said respondent is non-agriculturist and in terms of the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, he cannot purchase any agricultural land in the State of Himachal Pradesh without following the procedure prescribed under Section 118 of the Act (supra) and there is no permission granted in his favour by the State to purchase any land. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said respondent is physically threatening the petitioner and is carrying out the construction work in an unauthorized manner.

Taking into consideration the facts that have been narrated in this petition, this Court is of the considered view that said issue cannot be decided in writ proceeding. The factum of unauthorized construction being carried out by the private respondent can always be agitated by the petitioner before the appropriate Authority or in a Civil Court, which on the basis of evidence is the best Court to decide these issues. Similarly, whether or not the private respondent is the owner of the land in which he is carrying out construction and whether he ostensibly has become 4 owner etc. of the land are all facts which need to be proved by way of leading evidence.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition, with liberty to agitate all these issues before the appropriate Court of Law/ Civil Court as well as any other appropriate Forum/ Statutory Authority.