IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 3695 of 2024 Decided on 02nd April 2025 Shri Brikam Singh …Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma and Shekhar Badola, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for payment of compensation from the respondents for the construction of the road on the land measuring 55x5 mt. land, comprised in Khata No.545, Khatauni No.827, Khasra No.2993/2874 and Khasra No.3001/2897, situatd in Mohal Saloh, Sub Tehsil Sulah, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (HP or in the alternate the possession over the land in question may kindly be directed to be vacated in the interest of justice.” 2 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his land has been utilized for the purpose of construction of a road without duly compensated him. 3. The stand of the respondents-State is that the Thakurdwara to Ramnagar Colony via Tea Estate Godown Shiv Nagar Colony Radha Krishan Mandir Himalya via Tea Factory Saloh road is in existence for the last more than 100 years i.e. before independence. The respondents have only converted the existing road without any extra cutting/widening of the road into Bitumen metalled road in the year 2022. No objection was raised by the petitioner at the relevant time and now he is raising a demand after availing road connectivity after 100 years is an afterthought and an attempt to get unjust benefit. 4. This is strongly refuted to by the petitioner, who in his rejoinder has reiterated the averments made in the petition. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the stand of the respondents is that the road was in existence for more than 100 years and it has just being metalled in the year 2022, this Court is of the considered view that as there is no per se admission of the utilization of the land of the petitioner as 3 alleged by him, more so, as was submitted by the learned counsel that the land has been recently purchased by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there are seriously disputed question of fact involved in this petition, which can only be decided by the learned trial Court. 6. As prayed for, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 02, 2025 (Vinod)