2025:HHC:7791 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.114 of 2025 Decided on : March 25, 2025 State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Appellants Versus Rajinder Singh …Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : None. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This appeal has been preferred by the State against judgment dated 24.9.2024, passed in CWP No.1377 of 2019, titled Rajinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the petition, directing the appellants-State to initiate acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the respondent, utilized by the State for construction of road, namely “Gumma-Bakhol”. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “5. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the legal position, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to initiate the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land of 2025:HHC:7791 LPA No.114 of 2025 …2… 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. Parties to the lis are being referred as per their status in the writ petition. 3. Present appeal has been filed on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled for relief on the ground of delay and latches. 4. It is undisputed that land of the petitioner was utilized by the State for construction “Gumma-Bakhol” road, through the Public Works Department, and the petitioner had approached the Court seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the land utilized for construction of aforesaid road. 5. Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration verdict of Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986) 2 SCC 68; Swaraj Abhiyan (I) vs. Union of India and ors., (2016) 7 SCC 498; Hari Krishana Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 9 SCC 356; D.B. Basnett Vs. Collector East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr., (2020) 4 SCC 572; B.K. Ravichandra and Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2021) 14 SCC 503; and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508, has allowed the petition. 2025:HHC:7791 LPA No.114 of 2025 …3… 6. Similar view has been taken in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683; Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. and others, (2020) 2 SCC 569; Civil Appeal No.1278 of 2023, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv and another, decided on 24.2.2023, as well as judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.5928 of 2022, titled Vir Sain v. State of H.P. and others; and CWP No.1966 of 2010, decided on 12th September, 2013, titled Shankar Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh. 7. In similar matters, identical appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No.40 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Ramesh Kumar, decided on 27th February, 2024; LPA No.24 of 2019, titled as State of HP vs. Baldev Singh and others, decided on 27th March, 2024; LPA No.144 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Karam Singh, decided on 27th May, 2024; LPA No.151 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Prem Nath, decided on 12th June, 2024; LPA No.154 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Sohan Lal, decided on 14th June, 2024; LPA No.177 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Satdev Sharma & others, decided on 1st July, 2024; LPA No.230 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Chet Ram & others, decided on 2nd September, 2024; LPA No.303 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Vishal Kumar & others, decided on 24th September, 2024; and LPA No.382 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Om Parkash and another, decided on 26th November, 2024, by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No.10492 of 2023, titled 2025:HHC:7791 LPA No.114 of 2025 …4… Dharnidhar Mishre (D) and another vs. State of Bihar and others, and Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024, titled Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others. 8. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others. 8. Similar view has been taken by Division Benches of this High Court in LPA No.321 of 2024, titled State of H.P. and others v. Gian Chand and others, decided on 3.1.2025; and LPA No.68 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Charan Dass, decided on 1.3.2025. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General is not able to point out any ground indicating that present case is not squarely covered by aforesaid verdicts of the Court. 10. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any other perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. 11. We consider it fit to record that State is preferring the appeals despite dismissal of their similar appeals in identical matters. Such conduct is not in consonance with the Litigation Policy adopted by the State of HP which is causing wasting the time and energy of the State as well as the Court. It may invite imposing cost but taking lenient view, no cost is being imposed. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that it appears from the operative portion of the impugned judgment that direction has been given to acquire entire land of the 2025:HHC:7791 LPA No.114 of 2025 …5… petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition, whereas, the land, which has been utilized for construction of road should have been directed to be acquired. 13. Contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is misconceived, because direction has been given to initiate acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner which has been utilized for construction of road and, therefore, there is no question of directing for acquisition of land which has not been utilized for the purpose of construction of road. However, for more clarification, it is observed that acquisition proceedings shall be initiated with respect to the land which has been utilized by the State for construction of road. 14. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with direction that consequential action, in terms of judgment 24.9.2024, passed in CWP No.1377 of 2019, titled Rajinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, be taken within four weeks. Appeal stands disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge. ( Ranjan Sharma ) March 25, 2025(sd) Judge