Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15761 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 242 of 2025 Decided on: 21.05.2025 State of HP and others ...Appellants. Versus Baragi Ram and and others ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. State in the present Letters Patent Appeal seeks consideration of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7550/2022 titled Baragi Ram and others Vs. State of HP and others dated 04.09.2023, wherein directions have been issued to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute for the land which has been 2 utilized by the State for the construction of the road, namely, Jarol-Khai Ghat via Behana. 2. The learned Single Judge noticed that the respondents constructed a link road, namely, ‘Jarol-Khai Ghat via Behna’ under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (hereinafter referred to as PMGSY”) in the year 2003-2004. The respondents, vide notification had ordered acquisition of three khasra numbers situated in village Jyor-66 and Award No. 1/2020 dated 09.10.2020, was also passed but other khasra numbers of the adjoining village Mohal wherein the land of the petitioners was situated were not acquired. Resultantly, the judgments in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Rattra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2022) 7 SCC 508, were taken into consideration while issuing necessary directions and also the judgments in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68, and Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs State of Maharashtra and 3 others (2020) 9 SCC 356, were fallen back upon to take the support of Article 300A of the Constitution to the effect that land owners cannot be deprived of the right of property save by the authority of law. 3. The argument of the State was repelled that there was implied consent as such and thus, on account of delay and laches as the land owners remained silent for 20 years, the compensation should not be paid since the usage of the road had started in the year 2003- 2004. Counsel for the State further stressed on two issues, i.e., implied consent and delay as such in approaching the Court. 4. In similar situation, for the same road, we had in LPA No. 168 of 2025 titled State of HP and others versus Surya Kant decided on 16.05.2025 upheld the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.01.2025. In the said case also, it was noticed that there was a reference to CWP No. 3760/2009 titled Durgi Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 05.07.2016 and the fact that there 4 was notification dated 11.10.2018 to acquire the land of village Jyor-66 and the Award had been passed on 09.10.2020. It has also been noticed that the road as such had been slowly added from the initial stage of 7 KMs up to 16 KMs and resultantly, we had come to the concussion that the similar land owners as such had been paid compensation and the judgment had attained finality and therefore, issue of delay as such could not be raised as the land of the petitioners in that case fell on the stretch of 13 KMs to 16 KMs which is the last utilized stretch. 5. A bare perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition would go on go show that the judgment in Durgi Devi’s case (supra) which has been appended as Annexure P7, has been relied upon apart from the Award dated 09.10.2020 Annexure P-6, which pertains to the land situated in village Jyor-66. 6. Written statement as such filed by the State also admits in the same tenure that the road was initially constructed up to 7 KMs and thereafter from 5 13KMs to 16 KMs and therefore, the argument as such as has been raised that there is delay in approaching the Court as such, is without any basis, especially when the State has granted compensation to Durgi Devi, who was also similarly situated to that of the respondents herein. It is also admitted that length of 16 KMs stretch of the road is the one which was constructed in the end and it was admitted by the State that it could not have been constructed without express consent of the land owners. It is thus apparent that the issue of delay has already been noticed in Durgi Devi’s case (supra) that the last stretch was utilized for the construction of the said road. 7. Resultantly, having taken a view that the similarly situated land owners are entitled to benefit of compensation and the issue of delay as such for the same stretch having been negatived, we do not find any plausible reason to take a contrary view. 8. The issue of implied consent of the owners is already settled in Civil Appeal No(s) 3189 of 2022, 6 Kalyanai (Dead) through LRs and others vs. The Sulthan Bathery Municipality and others, wherein the Apex Court was dealing with the similar situation, wherein, land had been utilized for construction/ widening of bypass road and the landowners had been given assurance that they would get adequate compensation for their land which had been utilized. The Supreme Court held that the onus as such could not be shifted on the land owners qua the donation aspect which had been done by the High Court in that case. 9. The filing of these appeals by the State has also been deprecated by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 49057 of 2024 titled The State of HP and others vs. Upender Kumar decided on 22.11.2024 which had arisen out of the judgment in LPA No. 54 of 2017 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Upender Kumar decided on 27.03.2024, wherein the Apex Court while dismissing the SLP noticed that 7 the exemplary costs are liable to be imposed. The said order reads as under: “Delay condoned. 2. We have come across several matters wherein the State of Himachal Pradesh has challenged the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pardesh, thereby directing the compensation to be paid to the respondent(s). 3. The writ petitioner(s) has approached the High Court with a grievance that though the possession of their lands were taken for road construction, they did not receive compensation. 4. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that the State cannot take possession of citizen land without paying the compensation. 5. Although the right to property is no longer considered a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right. The State cannot be permitted to acquire citizen land without paying appropriate compensation. 6. In these circumstances, it would have been justified in dismissing the special leave petition(s) with exemplary cost. However, we refrain from doing so now and simply dismiss these special leave petitions. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.” 8 10. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2025, State of H.P. and others vs. Charan Dass decided on 01.03.2025 and Letters Patent Appeal No.183 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Amar Singh decided on 21.04.2025, we have given detailed reasons as such, as to why no ground is made out to interfere in such matters, keeping in view the law settled by the Apex Court. 11. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the instant appeal is devoid of any merit, hence it is dismissed along with pending applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge May 21, 2025. (cm Thakur)