JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J(oral). Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, learned counsel submits that lease of the land, in question, already stands registered in favour of the present petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner shall forthwith approach the authorities under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for obtaining appropriate permissions/sanctions both under Section 5 as also Section 14 of the Act. 3. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 07.03.2013 passed by the Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nichar at Bhaba Nagar, District Kinnaur, H.P. in Case No.02/10, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus M/S Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- “14. Considering all the evidences recorded in the case file I am of the view that respondent has unauthorisedly encroached upon khasra No.595/1 measuring 0-23-95 hectare in up Muhal Kutano by constructing outfall of flushing tunnel of Karchham Wangtoo H.E. Project. Therefore, the respondent Jaypee Karchham Hydro Corporation Limited Chholtu (Now M/S Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited) is ordered under Section 12(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1968 to remove the unauthorized construction on the encroached land on Khasra No.595/1 area measuring 0-23-95 hectare in up muhal Kutano, Tehsil Nichar, Distt. Kinnaur (HP). In case the respondent fails to comply with the orders and do not remove his unauthorized construction himself within 30 days from the date of issue of this order, the same will be removed forcibly under the provisions of the above Act and the cost of removal will be recovered from the respondent.” 4. In view of the intervening developments, which have taken place, petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) Petitioner shall, within one week approach the competent authority under the Act for seeking necessary permission/sanction/order of compounding; (ii) Such authority shall decide the petitioner’s application, after affording opportunity to all concerned, within a period of two months thereafter; (iii) Till such time, decision is taken by the competent authority, impugned order dated 07.03.2013, shall be kept in abeyance and (iv) It shall be open for the petitioner to approach this Court, on the same cause of action, if need so arises subsequently. 5. Needless to add, the authority shall decide the application(s), in accordance with law, uninfluenced of any observations made by the competent authority, in the impugned order. 5. Needless to add, the authority shall decide the application(s), in accordance with law, uninfluenced of any observations made by the competent authority, in the impugned order. Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of.