Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33386 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 674 of 2025 Decided on: 19.09.2025 State of H.P. and others ...Appellants. Versus Smt. Yashwanti Devi 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. Gobind Korla, 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.5640/2023 titled Smt. Yashwanti Devi and others vs. State of HP and others dated 10.03.2025, whereby directions have been issued to the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners, which was utilized for the purpose of the construction of the channelization of a khud/river, in accordance with law and pay adequate compensation to the petitioners. The 2 acquisition proceedings were ordered to be completed within a period of four months from the date of passing of the said judgment. 2. The usage of the land comprised in khewat No. 169 min, khatauni No. 210 min, khasra No. 151, measuring 00-25-89 hects. situated in Up Mohal Nichla Kotla Tehsil and District Una, HP, as per the writ petitioners was for the construction of the channelization of a khud/river. Out of the aforesaid land, certain land of the petitioners comprised in khasra No. 151 to the extent of 00-08-63 hectares has been utilized without acquiring the same in accordance with law and without paying any compensation to the petitioners. 3. The learned Single Judge, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court, has held that onus is much more heavy upon the State and it cannot be allowed to utilize the land of the individual without acquiring the same and compensating the land owner in accordance with law. It has further been held that as the land is being utilized for the public purpose and it cannot be taken as a shield by the State for denying compensation to the land owner, as the State always uses and utilizes the property for the public 3 purpose. Resultantly, the writ petition was allowed with the directions as noticed above. 4. It is not disputed by the State that the land of the petitioners has been utilized for the construction of the channelization of khud/river. However, the only stand taken by the state in its reply is that the part of land which has come within the standard width which was taken for channelization, is barren land and has no agricultural use and therefore, if in such cases, the State starts granting compensation, it will increase the project cost many folds and the very purpose and object behind execution of the project would be defeated. 5. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to take a contrary view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge for granting the benefit of compensation to the petitioners. 6. It is to be taken into notice that in the writ petition filed, it is specifically mentioned that the land was being utilized for channelization of water and therefore, the writ petitioners should not be divested of the land without adhering to the due process of law. The land owners, adjoining to river had got undue benefit whereas interest of 4 the petitioners has been jeopardized and unauthorized possession of the land had been taken and even legal notice dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure P-2), had been issued. Perusal of the said notice would go on to show that objection regarding the preparation of detailed project report had been raised and it has been pleaded that the channelization of the river was to benefit certain set of persons whereas the petitioners’ land was away from the river and was thus utilized and diversion as such had cost them dearly. No reply having been given, apart from departmental communication, in such circumstances, the writ petition came to be filed. 7. The stand of the State as such was that the land was being utilized for channelization of the Swan River and its tributaries. The people were fed up with the continuous devastation being caused by the river, year after year, but the process of channelization in four phases had paid its dividend as now the river does not cause heavy damage during monsoons. Three phases of channelization work were already completed in 2013-14 and phase four had not been completed which is being undertaken by the Department with the total cost of Rs. 922 crores to protect the land of 5 thousands of farmers’ cultivation on both sides right and left bank of swan river and its tributaries. The project has been undertaken for larger public welfare to protect the fertile land situated on both sides of river bank by raising embankments. The work involved was for channelization of Tiuri Badoli/Lalsinghi Khad which is a tributary to Swan and contract was awarded to 4 contractors, where the work was completed on 25.06.2020, without any objection. 8. The small piece of land of the petitioners which came within 50 meters standard width of project was barren land having no agriculture use and falls within the natural cutting of rivulet area and in rainy season, it submerges in water being flowing on same level. The fertile piece of land of petitioners being the above land outside natural flow of rivulet has been duly covered by raising stone masonry work embankment. It is stated that if the work is re-aligned, the reduced standard width would cause heavy damage to stone masonry wall and there may be chances that it may collapse once water in rainy season surges and would ruin the cultivated land of other land owners. 9. The project is stated to be purely public oriented aimed at to protect farmers’ land from soil erosion by 6 raising embankment on both sides of river and its tributaries caused by heavy rain during monsoon and there is no provision for acquisition/compensation for the used land. No one had objected to the construction work and the petitioners had never approached the respondents during execution of the work at site. The legal notice is stated to have been served after execution of the work and thus it was submitted that the land as such which came within the width of a standard 50 meters, was not prime land. The land which had been used was barren land and has no agriculture use and if compensation is granted it will increase the project cost manifolds and the very object behind execution would be defeated. The writ petition therefore, was stated to be not maintainable. 10. Rejoinder (sic-replication) has been filed and reference was made to Article 300A of the Constitution of India regarding the constitutional rights of the petitioners. It has been reiterated that they had been divested from their land without due process of law and there is admission by the respondents that it was done without due process of law. The manner in which the project has been carried out, was objected to and the fact that the State was a welfare 7 State where rule of law is prevalent and the respondents cannot be allowed to dispossess the petitioners from their ownership and possession over the land without following due process of law. 11. Interestingly, in the grounds of appeal, the stand of the State remains the same that the project was for larger public interest and there was not a single case of land acquisition and people allowed their land for execution with the expectation that the agriculture in the remaining portion of land, after construction of the channelization project, would give them better returns. The check dams in the tributaries and planting of grass and bushes for bank protection had also been done. The width of the river had increased and fertile land situated on both banks was turning barren due to silt deposits, besides some of the fertile land situated near the banks had been lost during the floods. Approximately, 10,000 hectare of agriculture land was affected by floods and annually 2000 hectares of fertile land was not being cultivated owing to fear of floods. The estimated loss to crops and property was about 15 crore per annum. It has been pleaded that fertile land of the land owners has been properly secured by constructing a stone 8 pitching embankment and there was no objection to the construction of the bankment at the relevant time. Thus, reliance was placed upon Article 21 of the Constitution as such that the State was under obligation under the State’s sovereign duty to protect life, property, and ecological balance under Article 21 of the Constitution. 12. Thus, it is not disputed that the land utilization was there without taking any written consent of the land owners. 13. The settled position of law in context of utilization of land and rights of the land owners as such qua donation aspect 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 has specifically held that onus would not as such be shifted to the land owners. In the present case it is admitted that the land has been utilized but neither there is any plea taken that there was any written donation as such apart from the fact that it was consented to. The said consent as such would not further the cause of the State, in any manner. 9 14. The law on the position has been laid down in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 9 SCC 356, while keeping in view the constitutional right under Article 300A regarding the property and doctrine of eminent domain and payment of reasonable compensation for taking over possession of the property in public interest. Thus, it was held that however, laudable the purpose may be, a person cannot be deprived of property except by the authority of law. The High Court was duty bound to issue a writ of mandamus for enforcement of public duty and the High Court under Article 226 cannot be deprived of its jurisdiction, since the private road measuring 414.14 sq. meters had never been acquired by the Corporation. Reliance was placed upon K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1, regarding the duty of the Court to issue writ of mandamus. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed whereby the writ petition had been dismissed on the ground that the modification only involved deletion of the same as holder of the private land. 15. Similarly, in Sukh Dutt Ratra and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2022) 7 SCC 10 508, the appeal of land owners against the judgment of this Court was allowed along with Rs.50,000/-, costs and expenses and directions were issued to treat the subject land as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse the compensation to the appellants. The land had been utilized for construction of “Narag Fagla Road” in 1972-73 and the writ petition had been dismissed on the ground of limitation relying upon the judgment in Shankar Das vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2013 SCC OnLIne HP 681 that the issue involved disputed questions of law and facts for determination on the starting point of limitation which could not be determined in the writ proceedings. The Apex Court came to the conclusion that the State could not shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches in such a situation and there cannot be a ‘limitation’ to do justice. It was held that the verbal consent or the lack of objections would not be any evidence indicating the manner that the land had been taken over or acquired known to law. Reliance was placed upon Vidya Devi vs. State of HP (2020) 2 SCC 569 while coming to the said conclusion. 16. Thus, the position stands settled and the weight of precedents is stacked against the State. The stand that 11 the land was barren and useless, would be a measure to give him compensation accordingly and it would be a factor before the Reference Court after the acquisition proceedings are initiated and it is not for this Court to opine at this stage. 17. We have consistently taken the said view in various judgments wile dealing with the issue of utilization of land for the purpose of construction of roads. 18. In 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 we 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). 19. 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, 12 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. 20. 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 Judge, whereby the direction has been issued to acquire the land of the petitioners which is utilized for the construction of the channelization of a khud/river in accordance with law and pay adequate compensation to them. 21. 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 19, 2025. (cm Thakur)