UDAY SINGH(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/3165/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010090262026

Filing Number

CWP/7625/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/3165/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UDAY SINGH(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Yogesh Kumar Chandel

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.State of HP(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.The Director, School Education(Not Applicable)

  4. 4.The Deputy Director, School Education-Shimla(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaView PDF

    The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioners to file a representation with the competent authority within three weeks regarding their claim that state land acquisition for road widening utilized their property. The court directed the competent authority to verify and decide within six weeks whether the petitioners' land was used for road construction and if so, process acquisition and compensation per applicable law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Office Objection

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/3165/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioners to file a representation with the competent authority within three weeks regarding their claim that state land acquisition for road widening utilized their property. The court directed the competent authority to verify and decide within six weeks whether the petitioners' land was used for road construction and if so, process acquisition and compensation per applicable law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case