ORDER : 1. Notice. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Nitin Thakur and Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned Advocates, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief: (i) That writ in the nature or mandamus may kindly be directed to provide irrigation water to the allotted land of the petitioner immediately or the allotment of the petitioner may be exchanged with land having irrigation water and all the facilities required for cultivation and human habitation failing which the respondent State of Rajasthan and respondent No. 7 i.e. Chairman BBMB 19-B, Madhya Marg HLDC Complex Industrial Area, Phase-I CHD 16002 may be directed to give the financial compensation to the petitioner to the tune of 5 cores for his non-settlement for the last 46 years as well as the cost of the land at Sriganganagar on which he was originally supposed to be settled as directed by the high power committees in its meeting held on 6-7th October 2017 in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that similar matters were considered by this Court in a batch of cases, lead being CWP No. 1540 of 2013, titled as Bakshi Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 6th November, 2013 and prays that this writ petition be disposed of in terms of the judgment (supra). His statement is taken on record. 4. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment, referred to above: “2. It is not in dispute that after the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (1996) 9 SCC 749 , a high power committee has been constituted to look into the grievance of the petitioners and similar situate persons. This committee is still functional. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make representations before the high power committee. The committee shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and similar situate persons within a period of six months after receipt of the representations. This committee is still functional. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make representations before the high power committee. The committee shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and similar situate persons within a period of six months after receipt of the representations. The committee shall also be guided by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 492 of 2007, titled as Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on 29.3.2011, against which an SLP was preferred which was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2.1.2013. It is made clear that the limitation/delay shall not come in the way of the petitioners. It is also made clear that the high power committee shall decide the cases individually and pass speaking/detailed orders, strictly as per the averments made in the representations. It is further clarified that if the land is available in Sriganganagar (reserved area), this aspect shall also be taken into consideration. The respondent- State is also directed to issue the eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioners in CWPs No. 11070 of 2011-G and 1158 of 2013 in order to enable them to present their cases before the high power committee.” 5. It is also stated that the judgment, referred to above, was also followed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in SLP (C) No. 21904 of 2012, titled State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Ashwani Kumar Sharma and Others, decided on 2nd January, 2013 and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. 6. In the given circumstances, as prayed for, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge (supra) with liberty to the petitioner to file representation within four weeks before the High Power Committee. Ordered accordingly. As agreed, the said Committee is directed to decide the same within three months thereafter. Needless to add, such decision shall be taken strictly in accordance with law and after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned, if so required or desired. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.