1 2025:HHC:44592 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LP A No.817 of 2025 Decided on: 18.12.2025 Pradeep Kumar and others ......Appellants Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr. H.K.S Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP No.10941 of 2024 titled Pradeep Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another decided on 13.08.2025, wherein the writ petition was dismissed by taking into account the affidavit given by the father of the petitioners that the land could be utilized for the construction of the road, and such utilization having been done way back nearly 20 years earlier in 2005-06, the legal heirs, as such, could not now pray for the grant of compensation. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:44592 2. Shiv Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, having allowed his land to be utilized for construction of the road, namely Sarog-Kadyawag road, the successor-in-interests having approached the Court after his death, was held to be a motivated litigation and resultantly the writ petition was dismissed. 3. The argument raised, which is sought to be repeated before us, that the intent of obtaining such affidavit dated 05.11.2000 (Annexure R-I), which is placed on record by the State was only a No Objection, is without any basis. It is also to be noticed that when the writ petition was filed, the petitioners never pleaded that their father had given the necessary consent by way of an affidavit, and it is only on account of the record which was available with the State that they were able to append the affidavit, showing that the consent of the earlier landowner was already in existence. Once the landowner had himself consented that the land could be utilized and given his No Objection, we are of the considered opinion that the next generation, having taken benefit of the land now being approached by a road and the 3 2025:HHC:44592 value of the other land having increased on account of the road being constructed, cannot take further advantage to seek compensation and have no locus standi to file the writ petition. 4. The representation/notice (Annexure P-2) would go on to show that an effort has been made to project that petitioners are agriculturists/horticulturists and are earning their livelihood by selling fruits, vegetables and grass from generation to generation, which is in contradiction to the landholding, as reflected in the Jamabandi (Annexure P-1), which shows that they are owners of more than two hectares of land and are thus big landowners. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3189 of 2022, titled as Kalyani (Dead) through LRs and others versus The Sulthan Bathery Municipality and others, decided on 26.04.2022, has held that the aspect of donation cannot be shifted upon the landowners and that it is the onus of the State as such to show that the land was allowed to be used by the then landowners and permitted without asking for compensation. The State having discharged its onus by placing the affidavit on record would thus negate the right as 4 2025:HHC:44592 such of the landowners, who have been rather benefited by getting an approach road to their large tract of land. The predecessor-in-interest being well aware of the benefits of the road approaching his property and during his lifetime having chosen not to agitate his grievance, the petitioners have no right to file this litigation. Therefore on the principles of acquiescence, we are of the considered opinion that the next generation cannot be permitted to raise the said issue. The benefit granted even to one of such landowners would open a pandora’s box to seek similar treatment by other landowners who would have also given similar affidavits for the construction of the said road. 6. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, keeping in view the above, the present appeal is dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 18 th December , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (ankit) Judge