IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.764 of 2026 Decided on : 20.05.2026 State of HP and Others. ...appellants. Versus Rajeev Kumar …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the State against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP No.2541 of 2021, titled Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of HP and Others, dated 01.10.2024, and the same is barred by 1 year and 145 days. 2. The State has taken an exception to the order, whereby the learned Single Judge had directed to carry out the demarcation of Khasra Nos.103 and 104, Up-Mohal Premnagar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, HP, as a dispute was raised regarding the spot report dated 01.03.2021, prepared by the Patwari and directed that in case the land of the petitioner comprising in the said khasra numbers, is found to be utilized for 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- construction of the road in question, the State shall initiate the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land found to have been utilized for the construction of a road within a period of eight weeks thereafter, and take the same to its logical conclusion within a period of one year. 3. The relief was granted on account of the settled position of law, in view of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the judgments passed by the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Umeed Ram Sharma (1986) 1 SCC 68; Swaraj Abhiyan (I) vs. Union of India and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 498; Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 356; D.B. Basnett Vs. Collector East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr. (2020) 4 SCC 572; B.K. Ravichandra and Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021) 14 SCC 503 and Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 508. Therefore, it was held that the land could not have been utilized without paying the compensation, which is stated to have been utilized for the construction of Thana-Premnagar road via Turan, Tehsil Jubal, District Shimla, HP. 4. Though, there are no justifiable reasons, as such, to condone the delay as mentioned above, but the only explanation -3- given was that after the judgment was passed on 01.10.2024, the file got misplaced in the office of the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Jubal, HP and remained undealt with and was discovered in the month of March, 2026, when a letter dated 17.05.2025 from the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, HP, was received regarding the pendency of the cases. It is not disputed that after the order was passed, a communication from the office of the Advocate General was received in the office of the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Jubbal, Shimla, HP on 12.12.2024. Thus, for the whole year of 2025, the file remained missing and therefore, there can be no plausible reason to condone the delay. There is nothing mentioned in the application qua any action having been taken against the employee, who had misplaced the file. Therefore, we do not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay. 5. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs and others vs. Union of India and another (2023) 10 SCC 531 case, we are also proceeding to examine the merits of the case, to find out as to whether it is fit case to grant indulgence and condone the delay. -4- 6. We however, find from the pleadings that there is no merit in the case. Since the specific case was that utilization of the land had also been done in other Khasra Nos.103, 104, 77/1, 79/1, 80/1 and 81/1, situated at Up-mohal Premnagar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, HP, and the land owner had been granted compensation for four khasra numbers but it is only for Khasra Nos.103 and 104 measuring 8 biswas, as such, he has staked his claim. 7. The learned Single Judge has observed that the stand of the State was that the acquisition had been done for the aforesaid Khasra number and compensation cannot be paid without legal demarcation qua Khasra Nos.103 and 104, which have been alleged to be utilized for the construction of the road. It was in such circumstances that the conditional relief had been granted leaving it open to the revenue authorities firstly to demarcate the portion and if found that in Khasra Nos.103 and 104, there has been utilization of land for the purpose of the construction of road, then the acquisition proceedings had to be initiated. 8. The settled position of law has been laid down in Civil Appeal Nos. 3189 of 2022, Kalyanai (Dead) through LRs and others vs. The Sulthan Bathery Municipality and -5- others, wherein the Apex Court was dealing with the 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 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). -6- 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. 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, titled 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 -7- of the Constitution, the plea of oral consent and delay and laches could not be raised, as it was a continuing cause of action. 11. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2025, titled State of H.P. and others vs. Charan Dass, decided on 01.03.2025 and Letters Patent Appeal No.183 of 2025, titled 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. 12. Keeping in view the settled position of law, we do not find that the judgment suffers from any infirmity and thus, does not need any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is also dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 20th May, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)