IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 276 of 2025 Decided on: 30.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellants Versus Maghi [deceased] through her LRs Raj Kumar and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was allowed in terms of the judgment passed in CWP No.5048 of 2022 titled as Kusum and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 04.07.2023, which had also been decided by the same Learned Single Judge and appended in support of the writ petition as Annexure P-3. 2. The directions in the said case, as such, were - 2 - to demarcate the land of the writ petitioners utilized by the appellants for construction of the road in question, within four weeks and which was deemed to have been acquired for the construction of the road and compensation negotiated in terms of the Negotiated Award No.1/2019, passed on 11.06.2019, which had been appended with the Civil Writ Petition as Annexure P-2. The land was utilized for public purpose i.e. for the construction of Jong to Jaindi road. The argument raised by learned State Counsel is that there is delay of more than 32 years in approaching the Writ Court and therefore, the judgment in State of Maharashtra versus Digamber reported in (1995) 4 SCC 683 would be applicable. Counsel for the State has further pointed out that in Kusum’s case (supra), an SLP has been filed vide diary No.53594 of 2024. Apparently, against the order of the learned Single Judge, in CMP.M No.475 of 2024, the Coordinate Bench has dismissed the same on the ground of limitation, which was barred by 256 days. 3. Resultantly, we proceed to discuss the issue on merit, as apparently, the reply filed by State is contrary to the stand taken on the ground of delay. The - 3 - writ-petitioner’s specific case was that the land had been utilized for the said purpose and Award No.1/2019, dated 11.06.2019 was passed where compensation was paid to the other landowners. 4. A perusal of the said Award would go on to show that it was issued for the land situated in Village Bari, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, whereas, land in question herein is of Mohal, Jatehar, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. The purpose of acquisition was the same. The pleadings as such was that the writ petitioner was made to run from pillar to post for justice and the respondents had not bothered to acquire the land of the writ petitioner and to pay her due and admissible compensation for the utilization of the land. 5. The reply filed by the State as such was that CWP No.6811 of 2014, titled as Mukund Lal versus State of H.P. and others, which had been preferred by some landowners and the acquisition proceedings were started in the year 1996, but the same could not be completed within the stipulated period and the Award could not be announced as all codal formalities could not be completed within stipulated period as per the - 4 - provision of the Act. 6. In the year 2008, the Department had again started process for acquisition, but the same could not be completed and the acquisition proceedings lapsed. Resultantly orders were passed on 29.12.2024 in the said case to complete acquisition proceeding with regard to the land which was situated in Mohal Pangan and that the land acquisition papers were sent only of those Khasra numbers. It is thus apparent that the State has been selective regarding initiation of the acquisition proceedings, though initially it had initiated the proceedings but never completed the codal formalities by its own lapse. As such, it cannot now turn around that the delay is specifically on the part of the land owners that they were insisting for the compensation and the State apparently did start acquisition proceedings knowing that land could not be utilized otherwise but did not complete the same and said proceedings had lapsed. 7. In such circumstances, even if there has been delay on the part of the landowners, but due to the reasons and fault of the State itself, now, it cannot be held out that the landowners have no right as such to - 5 - seek compensation for the land which is being utilized for the public purpose for the road in question. It has also been mentioned in the reply that land had been used for the construction of road in question. 8. In such circumstances, when similarly situated persons have been granted compensation by way of compulsory acquisition, it is highly unfair for another set of landowners not to get adequate compensation of the land acquired/utilized for the same purpose, when similarly situated persons having approached this Court, have been granted the benefit by parity of the Award (Annexure P-2) and the learned Single Judge has also accordingly allowed the petition in the same terms. 9. Keeping in view the fact that there was an Award already passed for the same purpose on 11.06.2019 (Annexure P-2) for village Bari, therefore it does not lie in mouth of State as such once they had passed the said Award for the construction of the road, process for the acquisition of the land had started in the year 1996, and passing of the Award had taken place in the year 2019. - 6 - 10. As per para 6 of the reply filed by the State, it has been mentioned that acquisition proceedings were initiated for Mohal Pangan in pursuance of the order passed in CWP No.6811 of 2014 and there is no mention, as such, for the acquisition of land for village Bari. 11. It is thus apparent that the State on its own whims and fancies had chosen to acquire land for certain set of people for different villages which had been utilized for the same public purpose and pay them due compensation therefore, it cannot act arbitrarily and discriminately against landowners who were similarly situated as the same would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. The last argument raised that there is implied consent as such for the donation of the land which is also not liable to be accepted since its onus lies upon the State as such to show that donation of land had been made by the land owners. Reliance can be placed to the judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3189 of 2022, titled as Kalyani (Dead) Through LRs & Others versus The Sulthan Bathery Municipality & Others, decided on 26.04.2022, wherein it has been held that - 7 - onus of the said issue cannot be shifted to the landowners while 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 utilized. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 30th May, 2025 [himani/Bhardwaj]