1 2025:HHC:11843 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LP A No. 43 of 202 5 Decided on: 25.04.2025 State of H.P. and Ors. .....appellants Versus Avesh Stan and Ors. ...respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No.5775 of 2024 decided on 26.11.2024, whereby directions were issued to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis.-a-vis. land of the writ petitioners, so that they can be given just and fair compensation qua the same. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The land of the writ petitioners was utilised for the construction of road namely “Kupdi Nala-Tehtoli-Standri-Throla road” comprising in Khewat No.62, Khatouni No.109, Khasra No.491, situated in Mohal Tehtoli Mai Satanari, Patwar Circle Throla, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Learned Single Judge found that as per the reply as such there was no denial regarding the utilisation of land for the construction of the road and the only ground was that the claim of the petitioners could be defeated on the principle of delay and laches since, the road was constructed in the year 2001-02, which was also the pleaded case of the petitioners in the writ petition. 4. A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that the petitioners are owners of more than two hectares of land and their land to the extent of more than 00-10-00 hectares of Khasra No.491 has been utilized by the respondents, on the basis of which, the writ petition has been allowed. 5. Perusal of the reply would go on to show that the State has taken a plea that the villagers/petitioners were not connected with the road and were facing hardship in transporting the 3 horticulture and agriculture produce and demanded for extension of the road and their plea was that there is voluntary surrender of their land for road construction and have got significant changes in the social and economic status of the petitioners and other villagers and the respondents had spent huge amount of public money on maintenance of this road. 6. Reliance was placed as such upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.1966 of 2010 titled as Shankar Dass vs. State of H.P., that if there is a consent as such of voluntary surrender, relief can be claimed in the civil suit. 7. Reliance was also placed upon the Notification dated 13.12.2005 (Annexure R-1) that the land owners were willing to offer land free of cost by way of registered gift deed and duly mutated the law in favour of the department. In such cases, land falling should be acquired and therefore plea of the delay and laches as such was raised. Perusal of the said notification would go on to show that it is very expressly provided that firstly the land belonging to the beneficiaries of the proposed road should be transferred in the name of Department by way of gift deed and consequent mutation, 4 and thereafter the acquisition of the land from where the road link originates should be acquired. 8. The rejoinder filed by the land owners as such would go on to show that the plea taken as such was that the petitioners have not executed any document to bequeath their land in favour of the respondents and at the time of acquisition they had been informed that compensation will be paid in due course and thus reliance has been placed upon various judgments, which have also been cited by the learned Single Judge. Thus, it is a categorical case of the petitioners as such that they never gave any document to bequeath their land in favour of the State without compensation and neither the State has placed on record any such document in its plea taken by filling the rejoinder. 9. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the Article 300A of the Constitution of India, there is a procedure prescribed that land could only be utilised by acquiring the same and it could not lie in the mouth of the State as such that they can utilise the private land as such for the public purposes. Even if it is for the benefit of the petitioners and other land-holders 5 of the village especially more so once they had a policy as such in place which has not been adhered to for giving benefit as such to the land owners without payment of any compensation. 10. In similar circumstances, we have also vide a detailed judgment dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal No.183 of 2025 titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Amar Singh decided on 21.04.2025 and, therefore, for the reasons given therein, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice April 25, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (ankit) Judge