Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:6563 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPM No. 1736/2025 and LPA No. 111 of 2026 Decided on: 03.03.2026 State of H.P. and others ...Appellants. Versus Krishan Kumar ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. CMP (M) 1736/2025. In view of the averments and reasons contained in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 189 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 111 of 2026. 2. The present order takes exception to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP 2 No.4180/2021 titled Krishan Kumar Vs. State of HP and others dated 27.11.2024, whereby directions have been issued to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings, within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-a-vis land of the petitioner and thereafter, just and fair compensation qua the same be awarded to the petitioner and needful was ordered to be done expeditiously, preferably within four months. 3. The learned Single Judge noticed that the plea of the writ petitioner was that his land comprised in khasra No. 14, measuring 00-1-45 hectares, situated at his Dogri namely Kataili, Patwar Circle Dhar, Up-Mohal Kataili, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, HP came to be used by the respondents for the construction of road namely “Zero Point (NH) Shingla-Halipad to Besli-Makroli” in the year 1992-1993. Since similarly situated persons had received due amount of compensation on account of use of their land for the construction of the said road in question, the petitioner had also filed various representations to the department to pay compensation but no action had been taken by the respondents. Therefore, while placing reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Vidya Devi vs. 3 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, State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683 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 of India 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. 4. The stand of the State in the written statement was that the construction of the road in question had been done on the demand of the petitioner and their predecessor and public of the area to provide connectivity of the road to their houses and land. The question of acquiring the land in such circumstances therefore did not arise. The remedy as such was to approach the Court of Civil Jurisdiction and that the road was constructed in the year 1992, and there was voluntary surrender as such of the land. The petitioner had remained silent for about 33 years and at such belated stage, the petition was not maintainable. The village of the 4 petitioner, namely, Besari was covered by another road therefore, respondents were ready to discontinue the present road. No demarcation had been placed on record to establish as to how much land had been utilized and thus the writ petition was contested. 5. Reply was however silent regarding the plea that similarly situated person Jawahar Lal had filed CWP No. 1510 of 2017, seeking directions for the grant of compensation that his land had also been utilized for construction of the road, who was similarly situated and he had been paid compensation in view of directions contained in the aforesaid judgment (CWP No. 1510 of 2017) (Annexure P-2). 6. We have gone through the said judgment which would go on to show that for the construction of the road, namely, “Dakolar-Shingla-Shaneri”, the relief had been sought that the land had been utilized of the said person and similar directions had been issued. 7. We had asked the State as to whether any appeal had been filed in the said case. The communication dated 10.12.2025 was placed on record of the Executive Engineer, Rampur Division (B&R) HP PWD, Rampur that no 5 appeal had been preferred in the case of Jawahar Lal (supra). In such circumstances, the argument now that the writ petition had been filed at the belated stage, would be without any basis since the similarly situated land owners have already got the same benefit. The State has chosen not to file any appeal, therefore, they have been granted compensation in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the purpose of acquisition on account of the principle of eminent domain. Therefore, there is no plausible reason as to why the present writ petitioner could be denied the said benefit, on the principle of parity. 8. The issue regarding the assurance given by the land owners and the fact that there was voluntary surrender would have to be supported by some documentary evidence and the onus cannot be shifted on the land owners because donation aspect has been settled by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal NO(s) 3189 of 2022, Kalyanai (Dead) through LRs and others vs. The Sulthan Bathery Municipality and others. The Apex Court was dealing with a 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 6 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. 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. 7 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 & 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. 8 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 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 9 Judge, once similarly situated person has 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 (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge March 03, 2026. (cm Thakur)