2025:HHC:13786 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.40 of 2025 Decided on: 07.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh Appellants & Others Versus Hukam Chand & 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 appellant: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.815 of 2019, decided on 06.11.2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed with direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-à-vis land of the petitioners and for awarding just and fair compensation within four months. 2025:HHC:13786 - 2 - 2. Learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgments of Apex Court in Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2020 (2) SCC 569, Sukh Dutt Ratra Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, 2022 (7) SCC 508, State of H.P. versus Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68, and Hari Krishna Mandir Trust, Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 9 SCC 356, came to the conclusion that right to property is not a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India,. Thus, it was held that the State could not as such take the plea that the land has been utilized for construction of road which had been voluntarily donated as per its stand and that the case was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The same argument has now been repeated before this Court. 3. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the land was used for the construction of the link road from Dharampur to Satrehar via Mathi Banwar (by pass road) Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in the year 2004-2005. 2025:HHC:13786 - 3 - 4. We have perused the record of the writ file. The argument regarding voluntarily donation as such also falls flat as the reply to the writ petition would go on to show that the land was utilized for connecting the HRTC Bus Depot Dharampur by putting channelization crate walls from the bank of Son Khad adjoining to the land of the petitioner, as existing road from the middle of the Dharampur bazaar is very narrow. The length of the road is about 5.00 Kms and the work was completed during 2005-2006. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay as such as it was the duty of the State to initiate acquisition if they wanted to utilize the land. 5. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners were forced to approach this Court. There is nothing on record to show that the land had been surrendered voluntarily by the petitioners and the State has also failed to place any material on record to show that the petitioners had voluntarily donated the land. There is also nothing on record to show that there was acquiescence of the usage of the land for their own benefit. Even otherwise, as noticed the connectivity of bye-pass road is 5 kilometers and therefore, large 2025:HHC:13786 - 4 - number of people would also be affected by usage of their land and it is not a case of the State that some of the land was acquired and the others have voluntarily given the land. 6. This Court, vide detailed judgment dated 21.04.2025, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.183 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Amar Singh, has given detailed reasons, as to why no ground is made out to interfere in such matters, keeping in view the law settled by the Apex Court. 7. Reference can also be made to the judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. No.3189 of 2022, titled as Kalyani (Dead) Through LRs & Others versus The Sulthan Bathery Municipality & Others, decided on 26.04.2022, 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. It was held that onus would be on the State to show that there was voluntary donation of land for the said usage. 8. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the appeal to take contrary view. Accordingly, the appeal is 2025:HHC:13786 - 5 - dismissed in limine. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 7th May, 2025 [himani/shivender]