2026:HHC:42039 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14990 of 2024 Date of Decision: 29.09.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Partap Singh Chauhan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the Principal Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 07.08.2023 passed in CWP No. 6597 of 2022, came to be rejected on the ground of delay, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order and direct the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 07.09.2020 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1510 of 2017, titled Jawahar 2026:HHC:42039 2 Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein issue with regard to limitation has already been dealt with. 2. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, perusal whereof clearly reveals that order laid challenge in the instant proceedings has not been passed in light of mandate given in judgment dated 07.09.2020 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1510 of 2017, rather, respondent, having taken note of operative part of the judgment dated 07.08.2023, whereby direction came to be issued to consider and decide the prayer of the petitioner for acquisition of his land allegedly used by the respondents, for construction of Deothi to Sharaikoti Mata Mandir (12/20) Rampur Bushahar, proceeded to decide the same on its own merits, without bothering to look into the mandate given by this Court in Jawahar Lal (supra), especially qua delay and laches. 3. True, it is that vide direction contained in judgment dated 07.08.2023, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner was to be decided, but in light of judgment passed by this Court in Jawahar Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra). However, careful perusal of order laid challenge in the instant proceedings clearly reveals that there is no discussion, if any, with regard to judgment passed by this Court in Jawahar Lal (supra), wherein this Court, having taken note of various judgments passed by the 2026:HHC:42039 3 Hon'ble Apex Court, has categorically held that respondent-State cannot be permitted to raise the plea of delay and laches in the cases of land used for construction of road, especially when factum with regard to use of land for construction of road is not denied. 4. 4. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed and impugned order dated 19.08.2024 is quashed and set aside, with direction to the Secretary (Public Works Department) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh, in light of mandate contained in judgment dated 07.09.2020 passed by this Court in Jawahar Lal (supra), which has attained finality, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. September 29, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (shankar) Judge