Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:35790 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 713 of 2025 & LPA 703 of 2025. Decided on: 14/16.10.2025 LPA No.713/2025 State of H.P. and others ...Appellants. Versus Ramesh Kumar and another ...Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ LPA No. 703/2025 State of H.P. and others ...Appellants. Versus Sukhdev Singh and another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta and Mr.Pranay Partap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. By this common judgment, two Letters Patent Appeals are being decided since the utilization of land in 2 both the cases was for the same public purpose, namely, “Narag Madi Ka Chat Daryar Road”. 2. Firstly, the LPA No. 703 of 2025 has arisen out of CWP No. 3589 of 2020 titled Sukhdev Singh and others vs. State of HP and others whereas LPA No. 713 of 2025 has arisen out of CWP No.4214/2020 titled Ramesh Kumar and others Vs. State of HP and others, both decided on 01.10.2024, by the learned Single Judge. 3. In the first case, i.e., LPA No. 703 of 2025, the land falls in village and Muhal Bhiunth whereas in other case i.e. LPA No. 713 of 2025, the land falls in Mohal Shadia Bajog Patwar Circle Shadia Sub-Tehsil Narag, District Sirmaur HP. 4. The reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge primarily was that the land had been utilized for the said public purpose and there was discrimination as there was an Award No. 12 of 2009 dated 19.09.2009, for acquisition of land in revenue village Narag for the same purpose. 5. Objection of the State that the construction was in the year 1972-73, was overruled keeping in view the fact 3 that the other land owners have been given benefit of land being acquired in accordance with law with passing of the award and therefore, while placing reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 356 and Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 508, apart from other judgments, directions have been issued to the respondents to conduct demarcation of the subject land in accordance with law within four weeks. On demarcation, in case the land of the petitioner is found to have been utilized for the construction of the road in question, the acquisition proceedings were to be initiated in respect of such land within eight weeks and to be completed within one year thereafter. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in CWP No. 6581 of 2021 titled Labdhu Ram vs. State of HP and others, decided on 28.06.2023. It is a matter of record that SLP (Civil) Diary No. (s) 57351 of 2024 titled State of HP and others vs. Labdhu Ram was dismissed on the ground of delay of 438 days in filing and 103 days in refiling the Special Leave Petition, by leaving the question of law open. 4 6. It is pertinent to notice that in LPA No. 615 of 2025 titled State of HP and others vs. Puran Chand and others, we have dismissed the appeal of the State on 02.09.2025, against the judgment passed in CWP No. 3577 of 2020, titled Puran Chand and others vs. State of HP and others decided on 01.10.2024 which was also against the directions issued for acquisition in accordance with law for the construction of the same road, namely “Narag- Wasni-Dinger Kinnar- Bagthan” road falling in District Sirmaur, HP. We had noticed that the issue of delay as such of 43 years had also arisen in that case. The Award No. 12 of 2009 of village Narag dated 19.09.2009 had showed that it was for the construction of the same road which had been initiated while issuing notification on 28.05.2007, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by another notification under Section 6 of the said Act. We had also noticed that in CWP No. 8501 of 2013, titled Ravinder and others vs. State of HP and others decided on 13.08.2014, similar plea had been taken and the relief had been granted on the basis of the writ petition filed by one Mathu Ram who had been paid compensation vide Award in Land Reference No. 14-N/4 of 2010 pertaining to village 5 Wasni. Resultantly, we had declined to interfere when similarly situated land owners had been granted benefit of compensation. 7. We had also noted the view taken consistently by the Apex Court and our earlier view whereby we had also in principle upheld the orders passed by the various learned Single Judge(s) while rejecting the challenge to filing of such appeals. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “10.The settled position of law 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 was dealing with the similar situation, 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. The Supreme Court held that the onus as such could not be shifted on the land owners qua the donation aspect which had been done by the High Court in that case. 11.The filing of these appeals by the State has also been deprecated by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 49057 of 2024 titled The State of HP and others vs. Upender Kumar decided on 22.11.2024 which had arisen out of the judgment in LPA No. 54 of 2017 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Upender Kumar decided on 27.03.2024, wherein the Apex Court while 6 dismissing the SLP noticed that the exemplary costs are liable to be imposed. The said order reads as under: “Delay condoned. 2. We have come across several matters wherein the State of Himachal Pradesh has challenged the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pardesh, thereby directing the compensation to be paid to the respondent(s). 3. The writ petitioner(s) has approached the High Court with a grievance that though the possession of their lands were taken for road construction, they did not receive compensation. 4. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that the State cannot take possession of citizen land without paying the compensation. 5. Although the right to property is no longer considered a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right. The State cannot be permitted to acquire citizen land without paying appropriate compensation. 6. In these circumstances, it would have been justified in dismissing the special leave petition(s) with exemplary cost. However, we refrain from doing so now and simply dismiss these special leave petitions. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.” 12.Recently, the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP No. 20577 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs. Prashant Gupta, decided on 29.05.2025 against the order passed on 20.09.2024 by this Court, arising out of 7 LPA No. 291 of 2024, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs. Prashant Gupta, decided on 20.09.2024 wherein the Coordinate Bench as such had held that in view of Article 300A of the Constitution, the plea of oral consent and delay and laches could not be raised as it was a continuing cause of action. 13.We have decided 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 and 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). 14.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, 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.” 8. Thus keeping in view the above, once we have already upheld the orders passed in case of Puran Chand, (supra) for the same public purpose, we are of the 8 considered opinion that there is no plausible reason as such to take a different view for interference in the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge October 16, 2025. (cm Thakur)