1 2025:HHC:13316 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LP A No. 153 of 2025 Decided on: 09.05.2025 State of H.P. and another .....Appellants Versus Devender Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.5901 of 2024 decided on 19.12.2024, filed by the respondent-petitioner, wherein, the learned Single Judge directed the present appellants to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks’ under the relevant statute vis-a-vis land of the petitioner to avoid denying just and fair compensation on account of the fact that the land was utilised for the construction of the road, namely, Dhanroti-Purag Sampark Marg. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of H.P. and Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of H.P. and Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 508, apart from the judgment in State of H.P. vs. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68 and Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 356, and the mandate of Article 300A, which states that no person can be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. 3. Counsel for the State has raised the issue of delay and the fact that the land owners who owned the land on alignment of the road have already gifted their land in favour of the respondents and the petitioner had assured to gift the land and asked the respondents to construct the road through his land. He having delayed the execution of the gift deed, as the land was joint and all co-owners were not available was seeking undue benefit. 4. The perusal of the Writ record would go on to show that it is the case of the petitioner that the construction had been done in the year 2021 and thereafter the authority carried out the demarcation on his request and he accordingly submitted the representation as per the Legal Notice dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure P-4). 3 5. The appellant-State in its reply also admitted that the construction of the road length was 4 kilometers and it was done from the year 2011 to 2016 and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any such delay though it might have been initiated in the year 2011 by the State. The specific plea as such is that on account of the objection raised by the land owners, the official respondent had impressed upon the petitioner to permit the department to carry out the construction work in public interest and that acquisition proceedings would be started and they would be paid the market value of the law. 6. The stand of the State is also that 18 land owners have gifted the land in favour of the respondents and the plea as such is that the persons who owned the land on the alignment of the road had executed the gift deed in favour of the State but the petitioner delayed the same. Thus, it is apparent that there is nothing with the State as such to show that the land had been gifted in favour of the State to construct the road, by the petitioner at least. 7. In such circumstances, keeping in view the settled position of law, the State would be under an obligation as such to pay the adequate market value to compensate the land owners for utilization of 4 their land and it is due to this reason the learned Single Judge had directed the initiation of acquisition proceedings. 8. Recently, in Civil Appeal No.3189 of 2022 titled as Kalyani (Dead) through LRs & Ors. vs. The Sulthan Bathery Municipality and Ors., decided on 26.04.2022, the Apex Court dealt with a similar situation. In the said case, the land had been utilized for construction/widening of bypass road and the land owners had been given assurance that they would get adequate compensation for their land utilized. Having not been granted the adequate compensation, the land owners approached the Kerala High Court and the learned Single Judge had directed that since the land has been possessed by the Panchayat and thereafter handed over to PWD and directions were given to disburse the amount by the Panchayat after determination by the Collector. The matter had been reversed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on the ground that it could be a voluntary surrender and there need not be any formal surrender. 9. The Apex Court reversed the said judgment by falling back on Article 300-A of the Constitution of India by holding that changing the onus as such and shifting the burden on the land owners was not correct and the burden would be on Panchayat/Municipality. 5 The said judgment would be directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in absence of any gift deed in favour of the State whereas, corresponding 18 land owners apparently had executed the gift deed when the road in question was being constructed. 10. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no plausible reason for this Court to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in view of the above settled position of law. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice May 09, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge