2025:HHC:44016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 866 of 2025 Date of decision: 12.12.2025 State of H.P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Subhash Chand …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? For the Appellants.: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 1825 of 2025 1. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Superintending Engineer, the delay of 261 days in filing appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. LPA No. 866 of 2025 2. Consideration is sought of the judgment dated 24.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2538 of 2021, titled as Subhash Chand vs. State of H. P. & Ors., whereby directions have been issued to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today and take the same to its logical conclusion within a period of one year thereafter. 2 2025:HHC:44016 3. The reason which prevailed with the learned Single Judge that the land was utilised for construction of Thana- Premnagar road via Turan, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla was that respondents had already utilised the land falling in Khasra Nos. 461/1, 462/1, 407/1 and 410/1, for the construction of the road, which was started in the year 1990 and completed in the year, 2001. The case of the petitioner was that there was non- payment of compensation for the utilization of his land comprised in Khasra Nos. 500 and 501 and on account of the said fact, as there was no denial by the State that the said Khasra Nos. was not utilised, which was in the ownership of the land owner-writ petitioner, the directions have been issued for acquisition of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 500 and 501, by holding that land falling in other four Khasra numbers had already been acquired for the said purpose. 4. Reliance has been placed upon the settled principle of law laid down in Hari Krishna Mandi 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 including a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 6581 of 2021, titled as Labdhu Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 28.06.2023. 3 2025:HHC:44016 5. Counsel for the State has tried to convince us that demarcation had not been conducted as such in the presence of the State and, therefore, there was no such proof that the land had been used. We are not in agreement with the arguments raised especially the plea that land measuring 12 biswas falling in the two khasra numbers had also been acquired and utilised, for which compensation was sought. The land owner was very clear regarding the fact that Khasra Nos. 500 and 501 situated in Mohal Sheelagaon, Tehsil Jubbal was subject matter of acquisition, for which he has not been paid the compensation. There is no denial to this aspect that the compensation was paid for the other four khasra numbers, rather there is a plea that the petitioner did not raise any objection for acquisition of left out khasra numbers during hearing under Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and was satisfied with the acquisition and rates of land prevailing in the area and the petition after a period of 12 years was an after thought. 6. In such circumstances, there is tacit admission that land has been utilised. Even otherwise the stand as such in the written statement is that compensation was paid for the acquired land. Thus, apparently the land owner at later stage realized that land falling in two khasra numbers had been utilised, for which he had not been given due compensation and thus, approached the Court. It is also apparent from the letter dated 21.10.2010, 4 2025:HHC:44016 whereby respondent No. 2 had admitted that the land had been inadvertently left out and perusal of the said communication would go on to show that it had been written to the Assistant Engineer, PWWD by the Assistant Collector, regarding the demand as such of the land owners that acquisition should be done. Reply to the said paragraph is also that no assurance was given by the respondent-department to the petitioner regarding acquisition of land comprising Khasra Nos. 500 and 501 and the petitioner is an orchardist and having knowledge of the matter and the demarcation has not been conducted in their presence. It is, thus, apparently not disputed by the State as such that the land has been utilised. Having utilised the land, the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India would come into play that the land cannot be utilised without following procedure in accordance with law. 7. Resultantly, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing to initiate acquisition proceedings. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 12th December, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)