2025:HHC:4378 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 2109 of 2024 and LPA No.3135 of 2025 Decided on: 03.03.2025 State of H.P & anr. ......applicants/appellants Versus Goverdhan and anr. ...non-applicants/respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants/appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No.2109 of 2024 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 176 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No.3135 of 2025 2. Inter alia contends that the case of the petitioners was that an award was passed for the acquisition of the land on 01.05.1956 in favour of the land owner. However, later it transpired that in the year 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:4378 2010, the State was in occupation of 5 biswas more than the acquired land. 3. The challenge is to the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby directions were issued to initiate acquisition proceedings qua the excess 5 biswas of land, which appears to have been utilised for the construction of the road in question. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that it was the case of the land owner that the acquisition was of 14 biswas, but utilisation was of 19 biswas and therefore in such circumstances necessary directions were issued. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the written-statement filed by respondent No.1 in the Writ petition. He submits that all of 19 biswas was acquired and the necessary award bearing No.93 of 1956 was passed on 1st May, 1956 and mutation was also Annexure R-1. He has referred to certain parts of Column No.15 of Annexure R-1 from his record, which apparently was not part of the record of the learned Single Judge, as perusal of Annexure R-1 of the writ record shows that there was no column No.15. 6. It is in such circumstances the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that after 60 years the petition has been filed and therefore the said fact would have to be kept in mind if the acquisition was of 19 biswas. However, considering that apparently there was no 2025:HHC:4378 material before the learned Single Judge in the form of correct version of Annexure R-1, the counsel for the State is not in a position to argue the present Appeal. He therefore submits that liberty be given to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for placing the complete copy of Annexure R-1, so that the other side can also be put to notice. 7. Resultantly, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, we feel that the only appropriate remedy to the State would be to go back to learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, we dispose of the present appeal with liberty to take remedial steps before the learned Single Judge in accordance with law. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice March 03, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge