Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:28538 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 573 of 2025 Decided on: 22.08.2025 State of HP and others ...Appellants. Versus Tara Chand 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. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The present Appeal seeks challenge to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.6266/2020 titled Tara Chand and others Vs. State of HP and others dated 30.08.2024, whereby directions have been issued to initiate the process for acquiring the subject land of the petitioners utilized for construction of the road in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks and complete entire process within a period one year 2 thereafter. The fact that their land had been utilized for the purpose of the construction of the road, namely “Nagar- Dhamoon road” falling in khewat No. 1, khatauni No. 1, khasra No. 165, measuring 00-25-36 hectares, khewat No. 1 khatauni No. 17 khasra No. 166, measuring 00-07-70 hectares and khewat No. 1 khatauni No. 1 khasra No. 167, measuring 04-92-02 hectares in Patwar Circle Badhawani Mohal Shalagra Tehsil and District Shimla, HP in the year 1988 and improved in the year 1995-1996, was the reason for directing the State to do the needful. 2. The reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition in principal was that in view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6581 of 2021 titled Labdhu Ram vs. State of HP and others decided on 28.06.2023, and also keeping in view the judgments of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 9 SCC 356, and Sukh Dutt Rattra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2022) 7 SCC 508, and other judgments that the legal responsibility of the State for expropriating the private 3 property could not avoided the plea of delay and laches as it being a welfare State, was declined. 3. Counsel for the State has vehemently submitted that it was the own case of the land owners that the construction of “Hira Nagar-Dhamoon” road was initiated in the year 1988 and improved in the year 1995-1996 and thus there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court as the writ petition had been filed in the year 2020. The said argument has been met by the learned Single Judge by taking into consideration the fact that the land of similarly situated persons which had been utilized had been acquired vide Notifications under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 23.11.2000 and 12.06.2006. The exercise at the initial stage had been done for acquiring the land of village Badhawani and Shalagra with which we are concerned and the said Notification had also lapsed. The second Notification issued dated 12.06.2006 (Annexure P- 2) under Section 4 of the 1894 Act had also lapsed and thus on the ground of parity as such, the learned Single Judge had held that the argument that consent has been given to use the property without payment of compensation, was without any basis. 4 4. Counsel for the State has attempted to argue on the same lines to which we are not inclined to accept. 5. Perusal of the pleadings of the case would go on to show that there is a specific mention that the construction of the “Hira Nagar-Dhamoon” road had been started in the year 1988 and improved in the year, 1995- 1996. Acquisition proceedings had been initiated by issuing Notification dated 23.11.2000, under the provisions of 1894 Act and the construction of said link road had been completed through the land of the petitioners, despite resistance shown by the land owners. The said Notification had been appended as Annexure P-2 with the petition. Similarly, reference has also been made to the Notification dated 12.06.2006 appended as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition which had been allowed to lapse though the assurance had been given that the acquisition proceedings would be initiated. It was mentioned that there were trees standing which were uprooted for construction of the road and necessary entries to this effect have been made by the Junior Engineer and the road had been made functional for vehicular traffic in the year 2000. 5 6. The defence of the State was that the said construction was started in the year 1988 and improved in the year 1995-1996. On the demand of the land owners to give their land free, for construction of road the same had been voluntarily offered and a specific response was taken that the Notification was issued without obtaining any legal advice on the ground that the land had been voluntarily surrendered. Therefore, there was no question of initiating any acquisition proceedings. The relevant part of the written statement reads as under:- “Paras 6&7. That the contents of these paras of petition are admitted to the extent of construction of road by the respondents. It is however submitted that the road was constructed on the persistent demand of people of area including petitioners for which they voluntarily surrendered their land at relevant time. The notification(s) were issued without obtaining any legal advice and without verifying the facts that disputed land has been surrendered voluntarily by the petitioners and other villagers which later on was dropped by the govt on the above facts. It is also submitted that the Govt. has taken a decision in the year 1998-99 that no land acquisition in respect of the rural link road shall be initiated and road will be constructed only if the land is donated freely by the land owners. In view of such policy decision of the Govt., there is no question of initiating the acquisition proceedings. The Government in such has also surrendered/returned the land to the land cases owners as the compensation in such cases at belated stage cannot 6 be paid. Also, as with the passage of time, the prices of land have inflated many times, it is not economically possible to compensate all land owners who firstly demanded the road and after enjoying benefit of the road connectivity are demanding compensation after lapse of long time of 25-30 years. The contention of petitioners that they ever resisted construction of road is absolutely incorrect and denied.” 7. Further, in para 8, it was admitted that the road was made fit for vehicular traffic in the year 2000, but it was denied that any trees of Cheer and Baan were uprooted. The plea that some other land owners had been granted benefit of compensation has also been admitted that to the said land owners, prior to 1997, the payment had been made at the market rate. It is thus apparent that the plea taken by the State is in contradiction as it has been pointed out that the land had been given voluntarily but there is no proof as such of any written document that the land was given voluntarily. 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 7 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. However, another aspect that remains is that having issued the necessary Notifications Annexures P-2 and Annexure P-3 which would go on to show that Section 4 Notification for village Shalagara was issued by the Financial Commissioner (PWD) and similar Notification is of the year 2006 for the same khasra numbers, as such which was also issued by the Principal Secretary (PWD), Government of Himachal Pradesh therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the State to disown the action of the State as such which though not taken to its logical end had led to the lapse of the proceedings. Once the State had initiated the acquisition proceedings on the principles of eminent domain, the question of any donation of the land would not arise. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the State as such that the land was voluntarily donated. Otherwise, the Notification had been issued as late as in the year 2006 8 which would show the intention of the State to acquire the land in accordance with law. Therefore, the delay aspect stands covered as apparently the State was acting on the issue once upon a time and apparently changed its mind and now it is contesting the same. 10. 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. 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. 9 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.” 11. 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 & 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. 10 12. 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). 13. 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 to why no ground is made out to interfere in such matters, keeping in view the law settled by the Apex Court. 14. Resultantly, having taken a view that the land owners are entitled to benefit of compensation and the issue of delay as such for the same stretch having been 11 negatived, as the State itself had issued the Section 4 Notifications not once but twice, we do not find any plausible reason to take a contrary view. 15. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that there is no plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 16. As a corollary, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 22, 2025. (cm Thakur)