2025:HHC:7735 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.87 of 2025 Decided on : March 25, 2025 State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Appellants Versus Raju alias 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 : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : None. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This appeal has been preferred by the State against judgment dated 26.12.2024, passed in CWP No.1449 of 2019, titled Raju @ 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 respondents, utilized by the State for construction of road, namely “Gumma-Bakhol”. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “17. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed with 2025:HHC:7735 LPA No.87 of 2025 …2… direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-à-vis land of the petitioner and thereafter, just and fair compensation qua the same be awarded to the petitioner. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for so long, this Court hopes and trusts that authority concerned would do the needful expeditiously, preferably, within four months. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.” 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; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683; Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. and others, (2020) 2 SCC 569; Hari Krishana Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 9 SCC 356; Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of 2025:HHC:7735 LPA No.87 of 2025 …3… Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508; 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, has allowed the petition. 6. 6. 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 Dharnidhar Mishre (D) and another vs. State of Bihar and others, 2025:HHC:7735 LPA No.87 of 2025 …4… and Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024, titled Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others. 7. 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. 8. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not able to point out any ground indicating that present case is not squarely covered by aforesaid verdicts of the Court. 9. 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. 10. 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. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with direction that consequential action, in terms of judgment dated 26.12.2024, passed in CWP No.1449 of 2019, titled Raju @ Rajinder Singh v. 2025:HHC:7735 LPA No.87 of 2025 …5… 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