2025:HHC:9274 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.124 of 2025 Decided on : March 27, 2025 State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Appellants Versus Rajesh Kumar and another …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : None. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This appeal has been preferred by the State against judgment dated 21.9.2023, passed in CWP No.1153 of 2021, titled Rajesh Kumar & another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the petition, directing the appellants-State to initiate acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the respondents, utilized by the State for construction of road, namely “Rohru-Dhara-Shekhal”. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- and a direction is issued to the respondents to demarcate the land of the petitioners utilized for the purpose of the road in question within four weeks, treat it as having been acquired for the said purpose and pay 2025:HHC:9274 LPA No.124 of 2025 …2… them the highest amount towards compensation among compensation under the Awards with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within eight weeks.” 2. Parties to the lis are being referred as per their status in the writ petition. 3. Present appeal has been filed on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled for relief on the ground of delay and latches. 4. It is undisputed that land of the petitioner was utilized by the State for construction “Rohru-Dhara-Shekhal” road, through the Public Works Department, and the petitioners had approached the Court seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the land utilized for construction of aforesaid road. 5. Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration decision of this High Court in CWP No.6581 of 2021, titled Labdhu Ram v. State of H.P. & others, has allowed the petition. 6. Similar view has been taken in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986) 2 SCC 68; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683; Swaraj Abhiyan (I) vs. Union of India and ors., (2016) 7 SCC 498; Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. and others, (2020) 2 SCC 569; Hari Krishana Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and others, (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 2025:HHC:9274 LPA No.124 of 2025 …3… SCC 503; and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508; Civil Appeal No.1278 of 2023, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv and another, decided on 24.2.2023, as well as judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.5928 of 2022, titled Vir Sain v. State of H.P. and others; and CWP No.1966 of 2010, decided on 12th September, 2013, titled Shankar Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh. 7. In similar matters, identical appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No.40 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Ramesh Kumar, decided on 27th February, 2024; LPA No.24 of 2019, titled as State of HP vs. Baldev Singh and others, decided on 27th March, 2024; LPA No.144 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Karam Singh, decided on 27th May, 2024; LPA No.151 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Prem Nath, decided on 12th June, 2024; LPA No.154 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Sohan Lal, decided on 14th June, 2024; LPA No.177 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Satdev Sharma & others, decided on 1st July, 2024; LPA No.230 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Chet Ram & others, decided on 2nd September, 2024; LPA No.303 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Vishal Kumar & others, decided on 24th September, 2024; and LPA No.382 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Om Parkash and another, decided on 26th November, 2024; LPA No.87 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others v. Raju alias Rajinder Singh, decided on 25.3.2025; and LPA No.114 of 2025, titled State of Himachal 2025:HHC:9274 LPA No.124 of 2025 …4… Pradesh & others v. Rajinder Singh, decided on 25.3.2025, by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No.10492 of 2023, titled Dharnidhar Mishre (D) and another vs. State of Bihar and others, and Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024, titled Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others. 8. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others. 8. Similar view has been taken by Division Benches of this High Court in LPA No.321 of 2024, titled State of H.P. and others v. Gian Chand and others, decided on 3.1.2025; and LPA No.68 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Charan Dass, decided on 1.3.2025. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in this matter Writ Petition has been decided on the basis of judgment passed in CWP No.6581 of 2021, titled Labdhu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein State has preferred an SLP Diary No.57351 of 2024 in the Supreme Court. The plea taken by the Additional Advocate General is of no help to the State, because large number of similar matters have been decided by this Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court and the ratio of judgment impugned herein is in consonance with the judgment/verdict of the Supreme Court. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General is not able to point out any ground indicating that present case is not squarely covered by aforesaid verdicts of the Court. 2025:HHC:9274 LPA No.124 of 2025 …5… 11. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any other perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. 12. We consider it fit to record that State is preferring the appeals despite dismissal of their similar appeals in identical matters. Such conduct is not in consonance with the Litigation Policy adopted by the State of HP which is causing wasting the time and energy of the State as well as the Court. Though exemplary cost deserves to be imposed, however, taking lenient view, were are no imposing any cost. 13. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with direction that consequential action, in terms of judgment dated 21.9.2023, passed in CWP No.1153 of 2021, titled Rajesh Kumar & another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,, be taken within four weeks. Appeal stands disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge. ( Ranjan Sharma ) March 27, 2025(sd) Judge