IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.275/2025 Date of Decision: 15th December, 2025. Onkar Sharma and Anr. .....Appellants Versus NHAI and Anr. …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sunder Nagar , District Mandi, HP in Civil Appeal No.46 of 2023, affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2023, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, HP, in Civil Suit No.97 of 2019. 2. The facts in the present case are that the appellants were the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court and they instituted a suit for recovery of damages amounting to ₹25,00,000/- along with interest against the present respondents, who were defendants before the learned trial Court. The case of the appellants, in brief, was that they were the owners of land comprised in Khewat No.223, Khatouni No.236, Khasra No.928/391 and 392 kitas 2 measuring 00-10- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 01 bighas in equal shares, situated in Muhal Chamukha/41, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. This land was sloped and adjacent to National Highway No.21. The respondents acquired a portion of this land, specifically Khasra No.928/391 measuring 00-06-01 bighas, for the construction and widening of the National Highway vide Award No.45/2013-14 dated 29.10.2013. 3. The appellants' case was that their remaining land in Khasra No.392 was very fertile, suitable for mango orchards, and had high commercial value. During the period from May 2016 to October 2017, the respondents executed the widening work on the acquired land in a negligent and unscientific manner, employing heavy machinery and blasting operations without making proper arrangements to protect the adjacent land of the appellants situated at a higher elevation. Consequently, in September 2018, the appellants' remaining land slipped down onto the National Highway, developing huge breaches and becoming completely damaged and unfit for any use. The appellants claimed the market value of the damaged land was ₹25 lacs, which they sought as damages under the principle of strict liability and for the wrongful acts and omissions of the respondents. Despite a legal notice dated 19.03.2019, the respondents failed to pay, leading to the suit. The respondents were proceeded against ex-parte. 3 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- 1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages to the sum of ₹25,00,000/- as alleged? (2) Relief. 5. After evidence and hearing, the trial court decided Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the trial court's judgment and decree, the appellants preferred a first appeal. In the first appeal, the appellants contended that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate the overwhelming evidence which proved the damage to their property was a direct result of the highway construction activities. It was argued that the principle of 'Strict Liability' was squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The appellants further submitted that the quantum of damages was established by Ext.P-12, the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, N.H.A.I. They asserted that the findings of the trial court were arbitrary, erroneous, and based on surmises, rendering the judgment unsustainable. The first appellate court, however, upon consideration, dismissed the appeal. It is against this dismissal of the first appeal that the appellants have now preferred the present second appeal. 6. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgements. 7. In the present case the Appellants’ claim for damages rests on two primary legal grounds: the principle of strict 4 liability as per Rylands vs. Fletcher, and the general law of torts concerning negligence. For either to succeed, the plaintiffs must first establish, through cogent evidence, a direct causal connection between the acts of the defendants and the damage to their land. This foundational link is absent. 8. The evidence on record consists of the testimonies of the plaintiffs themselves and one witness, who merely reiterated the averments of the plaint, and a demarcation report confirming a landslide. This evidence proves only the factum of damage, not its cause. The assertion that the landslide was a direct result of "unscientific" and "negligent" blasting, cutting, and excavation conducted by the defendants is a technical allegation. It necessitates proof through expert evidence such as from a civil or geotechnical engineer to demonstrate how the specific construction methods breached standard engineering norms and how that breach proximately caused the failure of the soil structure supporting the plaintiffs' land. The plaintiffs, being laypersons, offered no such technical or scientific basis for their conclusions. Their opinion on the cause of the landslide, without demonstrated expertise or observational foundation from the relevant time of construction, is inadmissible as proof of the alleged negligence. 9. Furthermore, the timeline of events weakens the plaintiffs' case. The impugned construction activities concluded in October 2017, while the landslide occurred in September 5 2018. The plaintiffs did not explain this significant temporal gap or provide evidence that the land remained in a state of destabilization directly attributable to the defendants' work during this period. Their failure to seek any interim injunction or raise a contemporaneous complaint during the active construction phase, despite allegedly witnessing dangerous methods, further undermines the credibility of their causal claim. 10. Regarding the principle of strict liability, its application is not attracted. The construction and widening of a national highway, a public utility project, does not constitute a "non- natural use" of land in the sense contemplated by the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher. There is also no evidence of the defendants having brought or accumulated a "dangerous substance" on the land which subsequently "escaped" to cause the harm. The damage alleged is one of gradual soil erosion and slope failure, not a sudden escape of a hazardous agency. 11. The plaintiffs' reliance on the compensation awarded for the adjacent acquired land (Ext.P-12) to quantify damages for the damaged land is misplaced. While it may indicate a general value of land in the area, it does not, by itself, prove that the specific damage to Khasra No.392 was valued at ₹25,00,000/-, nor does it establish liability. The quantification of loss remains unsubstantiated in the absence of a reliable valuation report for the damaged property in its post-landslide state. 6 12. Consequently, in the absence of proof that the damage was caused by the defendants' actionable wrong, whether under strict liability or negligence, the plaintiffs cannot be granted the relief sought, 13. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 15th December, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat/TB)