Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:30238 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 615 of 2025 Decided on: 02.09.2025 State of H.P. and others ...Appellants. Versus Puran Chand 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. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. In the present Appeal, consideration is sought by the State against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.3577/2020 titled Puran Chand and others Vs. State of HP and others dated 01.10.2024, whereby directions have been issued to the respondents to conduct demarcation of the subject land in accordance with law within four weeks and on demarcation, in case the land of the petitioner is found to have been utilized for the construction of the road in question, the 2 acquisition proceedings shall be initiated in respect of such land within eight weeks and be completed within one year thereafter. 2. The usage of the land, as per the writ petitioners was for the construction of the road, namely, “Narag-Wasni- Dinger Kinnar-Bagthan” road in the year 1990 whereas ownership was of the land in village Mauja Sarol Bashech, Sub-Tehsil Narag District Sirmaur. The plea of the State was that the road was constructed in the year 1977-1978 and several parcels of the land falling in village Narag, Maryog, Baryudi, Cheola Bhakang and Daron Devaria etc. had been utilized. The land was stated to have voluntarily utilized which aspect was not accepted by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the fact that there was Award No. 12 of 2009 dated 19.09.2009 in relation to the acquisition of the land for the public purpose regarding other villages. Accordingly, while placing reliance upon the Division Bench judgment in CWP CWP No. 6581 of 2021 titled Labdhu Ram vs. State of HP and others, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Umeed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68; Swaraj Abhiyan (I) vs. Union of India and ors. (2016) 7 SCC 498; Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of 3 Maharashtra & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 356; D.B. Basnett Vs. Collector East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr. (2020) 4 SCC 572; B.K. Ravichandra and Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021) 14 SCC 703; and Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 508, the learned Single Judge had issued necessary directions and held that the issue of delay and laches being raised by the State were held not liable to be justified being Welfare State. 4. The Counsel for the State has raised two issues again of delay and laches and implied consent of the land owners. 5. Perusal of the pleadings would go on to show that the plea was that the road had been constructed in the year 1990, and in similar circumstances in CWP No. 8501 of 2013, titled Ravinder and others vs. State of HP and others decided on 13.08.2014, the necessary relief had been granted on the basis of which the writ petition apparently was filed. It was further pleaded that for the village Narag, Award No. 12 of 2009 had been passed and the matter had also been sent to the Reference Court in Land Reference No. 14-N/4 of 2010 (Annexure P-5) dated 4 28.08.2014 vide which compensation had been enhanced to Rs.18,03,200/- per bigha. It is also the pleadings that the compensation had also been paid to one Mathu of village Wasni adjoining village of the petitioners. 6. The stand of the State in its reply was on the issue of delay of 43 years and there was no denial regarding similarly situated persons having been granted the compensation and proceedings initiated in the year 2013 in CWP No. 8501 of 2013 (supra). Similarly, the appellant-State has not denied the fact that land of certain land owners of village Narag was acquired vide Award No. 12 of 2009 dated 19.09.2009 for the purpose of the construction of the same road. Perusal of the order of the Reference Court dated 28.08.2014 (Annexure P-5) would go on to show that the notification had been issued on 28.05.2007 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and thereafter followed by another notification under Section 6 of the said Act and the Award had been passed on 19.09.2009. 7. Once similarly situated persons in the vicinity had been granted the compensation by resorting to the procedure prescribed under the law for the purpose of the acquisition on account of the principle of eminent domain, 5 we do not find any plausible reason why the other land owners, whose land had been utilized for the same purpose, can be denied the said benefit. 8. The plea taken by the State that the usage of the land was 43 years back, is also dispelled keeping in view the fact that the notification was only issued on 28.05.2007 under Section 4 of the Act for other similarly situated persons. Pleadings regarding Mathu having been paid compensation vide Award dated 24.06.2017 pertaining to village Wasni have also been not denied but the defence is that the directions were issued by this Court to initiate proceedings and the justification has been given. 9. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to take a contrary view when similarly situated land owners have been granted the benefit of compensation. 10. The settled position of law has been laid down in Civil Appeal NO(s) 3189 of 2022, 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 6 adequate compensation for their land 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. 11. 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 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. 7 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.” 12. Recently, the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP No. 20577 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs. Prashant Gupta, decided on 29.05.2025 against the order passed on 20.09.2024 by this Court, arising out of LPA No. 291 of 2024, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs. Prashant Gupta, decided on 20.09.2024 wherein the Coordinate Bench as such had held that in view of Article 300A of the Constitution, the plea of oral consent and delay and laches could not be raised as it was a continuing cause of action. 8 13. We have decided LPA No. 174 of 2024 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs. Jagat Ram and another directed against the judgment passed in CWP No.3151 of 2023, decided on 23.04.2024 and had upheld the said order keeping view the fact that the said order had already been upheld in LPA No. 6 of 2025 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Ishwar Dass, decided on 04.01.2025 regarding construction of the road from “Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo”, Tehsil Ramsehar, District Solan, H.P. The orders were also assailed by way of SLP which had been dismissed along with Prashant Gupta’s case (supra). 14. 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. 15. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that there is no plausible reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single 9 Judge, once similarly situated persons have been given compensation for utilization of their lands. 16. Having said so, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 02, 2025. (cm Thakur)