( 2025:HHC:40015 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.805 of 2025 Decided on: 21st November, 2025 State of H.P and others .......Appellants Versus Devki Devi and others ...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?1 For the appellants: Mr.Govind Korla, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The consideration in the present appeal sought by the State is to the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 10.01.2025 passed in CWP No.1613 of 2023 titled as Devki Devi and others vs. State of H.P and others, whereby direction was issued to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute for the usage of the land of the writ-petitioners for the construction of road namely, “Jarol-Khai Ghat via Behna” under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. 2. The averments made in the writ petition would go on to show that the grouse of the writ-petitioners was that 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:40015 ) 2 they were owners of land measuring 00-08-01, Khewat No.35/30m, Khatauni No.42/37, Khasra No.548 situated in Mohal Behna Sub Tehsil Dehar, District Mandi, H.P. and the same, as such, was utilized for construction of road between Jarol to Khai Ghat known as “Behna Triphalghat road”. 3. A reference had also been made to the relief granted to one Durgi Devi in CWP No.3760 of 2009 in case titled as Durgi vs. State of H.P and others, decided on 05.07.2016 wherein, benefits have been granted in similar circumstances with direction for acquisition of the land. The contention of the State was that there was delay, as such, in filing the case and the land of the writ-petitioners fell on the stretch of k.m.13/0 to 16/780, over which road was constructed in the year 2003-04 itself. It is submitted that the compensation to Durgi Devi had been paid under compelling circumstances. 4. In similar circumstances, in LPA No.616 of 2025 titled as State of H.P and others vs. Sauju Ram and others decided on 02.09.2025 qua the same road in question, we have upheld the order wherein there was admission by the State that the land also fell between kilometer 7/0 to 13/0 and it was constructed in the year 2003-2004. It has also ( 2025:HHC:40015 ) 3 been noticed that in the case of Durgi Devi, Notification had been issued on 11.10.2018 to acquire the land and the award was passed on 09.10.2020. 5. In such circumstances, we cannot differ for the reasons given in Sauju Ram’s case (supra) and we are not in a position to take a different view, as such, as apparently the land owners are having the same parameters. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “5. A bare perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition would go on to show that the judgment in Durgi Devi’s case (supra) has been relied upon apart from the Award dated 09.10.2020 Annexure P-3, which pertains to the land situated in village Jyor-66. 6. Written statement as such filed by the State also admits in the same tenure that the road was initially constructed up to 7 KMs and thereafter from 13KMs to 16 Kms, it was constructed in 2003-2004 and therefore, the argument as such as has been raised that there is delay in approaching the Court as such, is without any basis, especially when the State has granted compensation to Durgi Devi, who was also similarly situated to that of the respondents herein. It is also admitted that length of 16 KMs stretch of the road is the one which was constructed in the end and it was admitted by the State that it could not have been constructed without express consent of the land owners. It is thus apparent that the issue of delay has already been noticed in Durgi Devi’s case (supra) that the last ( 2025:HHC:40015 ) 4 stretch was utilized for the construction of the said road. 7. Resultantly, having taken a view that the similarly situated land owners are entitled to benefit of compensation and the issue of delay as such for the same stretch having been negatived, we do not find any plausible reason to take a contrary view. 8. The issue of implied consent of the owners is already settled 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 which had been 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. 9. 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 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 ( 2025:HHC:40015 ) 5 Himachal Pradesh, 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.” 10. 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 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. 11. 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 ( 2025:HHC:40015 ) 6 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). 12. 12. 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. 13. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that there is no plausible reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, once similarly situated persons have been given compensation for utilization of their lands, and we have dismissed appeals in cases of Surya Kant and Baragi Ram (supra). 14. Having said so, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) November 21, 2025 Judge (naveen)