2025:HHC:38714 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 1826 of 2025 & LPA No. 790 of 2025 Decided on: 13 th November , 2025 State of HP & Ors. ...Applicants versus Keshav Ram (deceased) through LRs ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 1826 of 2025 1. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit of Superintending Engineer 14th Circle, HPPWD Rohru, Distt. Shimla (HP), delay of 269 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:38714 2. Appeal be registered. LPA No. 790 of 2025 3. The present appeal seeks consideration of the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 2539 of 2021, titled as Keshav Ram (Deceased) through LRs vs. State of HP & Ors., whereby directions have been issued to initiate the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land within a period of eight weeks, keeping in view the utilization of land for the construction of Thana- Premnagar road via Turan, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla. 4. Learned counsel for the State has argued that some khasra numbers were left out and compensation was paid for other khasra numbers and the construction of the road was started in the year 1990 and completed in the year 2001. Even the Regular First Appeal was disposed of on 09.01.2024, regarding the compensation which has been paid for the three khasra numbers of the deceased land owner and therefore, there is acquiescence on part of the land owner and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned Single Judge has recorded the finding that utilization of the land in khasra No. 401 and 507, situated at Mohal Sheelgaon, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, 3 2025:HHC:38714 has not been denied. The compensation for the three khasra numbers has been paid and the alleged plea of consent cannot be countenanced in view of having already acquired three khasra numbers. 6. Keeping in view the settled principal of law laid down in Hari Singh Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 356 and Sukh Dutt Ratna & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 508, directions were accordingly issued. 7. We are not in a position to agree with the arguments raised by the counsel for the State, as it is their own lapse that two khasra numbers were left out from the proceedings which had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and in such circumstances the land owner has approached this Court. It was the duty of the State to have specifically demarcated the land in question and granted due compensation for the land which was utilized for the public purpose. The argument that there was consent as such, rather goes against the State as there would have been no valid reason to acquire three khasra numbers and leave out two. Apparently only on the mistake of the State on its own account, due to which the compensation was not paid for 4 2025:HHC:38714 the land which was utilized and for the other portion due process had been followed. In such circumstances the directions which have been issued by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any infirmity, as it is settled principle that the right of ownership can only be taken away in accordance with law, as per Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 8. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by learned Single judge. Accordingly, we dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal, along with other miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 13th November 2025 Judge (Anurag)