Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:28537 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 80 of 2025 Decided on: 21.08.2025 State of HP and others ...Appellants. Versus Ram Krishan and others ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1665/2024 titled Ram Krishan and others Vs. State of HP and others dated 10.12.2024, whereby directions have been issued to initiate acquisition proceedings, keeping in view the fact that their land had been utilized for the purpose of the construction of the road, namely “Shat to Jalugran” falling in khasra No. 642 and 825 situated in Mohal Jallu, sub-Tehsil Jari, District Kullu, HP., within four 2 weeks under the relevant Statute vis-a-vis the land of the petitioners and award just and fair compensation, 2. The learned Single Judge noticed that the plea of the writ petitioners was that the land had been utilized in the year 1999 for the said purpose but the acquisition proceedings had not been initiated. Therefore, while placing reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Rattra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2022) 7 SCC 508, and also the judgments in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68, and Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 9 SCC 356, and taking the support of Article 300A of the Constitution the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the land owners cannot be deprived of their right of property save by the authority of law. 3. The stand of the State as such that the land owners remained silent for more than 25 years and the writ petition was barred by delay and laches and there was implied consent as such of the land owners, was rejected. It had further been submitted that the road in question had 3 been constructed on the persistent demand of the residents of the area without any claim for compensation. 4. Counsel for the State has sought to argue on the same lines. However, we are not in agreement with the said defence which had been set up. The specific plea as such was that the compensation had been paid qua other land, namely, “Phati Jalu” to petitioners No. 1 and 2 but the respondents had not acquired the land in khasra Nos. 642 and 825 falling in Mohal Jalu. It is also the case as such that Award No. 4 of 2009 had been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and compensation had been paid to the other land owners on account of the Notification dated 07.01.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure P-2). 5. Perusal of the said Notification would go on to show that the same was for construction of the road from “Shat to Jallugran” for the area measuring 5-14-17 bighas and resultantly the land owners as such had set up the claim. 6. The stand of the State in the reply by the pleadings as such was that the petitioners had never raised any objection for construction of the road and voluntarily 4 surrendered the same and hence, they were beneficiary of the road connectivity. However, the acquisition vide Award No. 4 of 2009 was admitted on the ground that the said land owners had resisted the construction of the road. It is thus apparent that for the same purpose, similarly situated persons have been granted benefit of compensation for their land on account of procedure prescribed under the law which was utilized for the construction of the road but the writ petitioners, on the other hand, are similarly situated, did not get the same benefit. It is in such circumstances, they had approached this Court by filing the writ petition which has thus been rightly allowed. In case, the petitioners had voluntarily submitted to give their land, there should have been something in writing as such which is not the plea of the State, whereas on the other hand, the other land owners had been granted the benefit of compensation on account of utilization of their land. 7. Resultantly, having taken a view that the similarly situated land owners are entitled to benefit of compensation, the issue of delay as such for the same stretch having been rightly negatived, we do not find any plausible reason to take a contrary view. 5 8. The settled position of law has been laid down 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 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. 6 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 Himachal Pardesh, 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 7 & 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 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. 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 8 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. 14. Having said so, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 21, 2025. (cm Thakur)