Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 06.05.2025 vs Heera Singh (Since Deceased) Through on 6 May, 2025
2025:HHC:13247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA No.216 of 2025
Decided on: 06.05.2025
__________________________________________________________
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Appellants
Versus
Heera Singh (since deceased) through ...Respondents
his LRs-Sita Ram & Others.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting?.
For the appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral]
Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal
is against the order passed by Learned Single Judge in
Civil Writ Petition No.1128 of 2023, decided on
29.08.2023, whereby learned Single Judge directed that
acquisition be made for the land in question, which was
required for construction of the road, keeping in view the
mandate under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the
judgments of Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v.
Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683 and Vidya Devi v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and others, (2020) 2 SCC 569 and
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2- 2025:HHC:13247
Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others, (2022) 7 SCC 508, by noticing that the land of the
petitioner stands utilized for construction of road two
decades back but till date, petitioner has not been paid
any amount. Reliance has also been placed upon the
judgments of Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh
v. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68 and Hari
Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and
others, (2020) 9 SCC 356 to grant the relief.
3. Contention of counsel for the State that there
is delay in approaching this Court and therefore, learned
Single Judge was not justified in allowing the appeal.
4. A perusal of the record would go on to show
that it is the case of the writ petitioner that Shillai-Naya
Gatta Mandwich, road was not motorable and the same
had been constructed by HPPWD and the acquisition has
not been done. The road was leading to many villages as
such the land used in the road is prime land on which
many types of fruit plants and other valuable timber
wood trees were standing.
5. Reference was also made to decision in Civil
Writ Petition No.8130 of 2010, titled as Kalyan Singh
-3- 2025:HHC:13247
& Others versus State of H.P. & others, decided on
09.04.2021, whereby the writ petition of similarly
situated persons was allowed and LPA No.149 of 2021,
titled as Usha Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh
& Others preferred against the said order had been
dismissed.
6. Reference was also made to the judgment of
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. No.3189 of 2022, titled
as Kalyani (Dead) Through LRs & Others versus The
Sulthan Bathery Municipality & Others, decided on
26.04.2022 [Annexure P-2, in Writ Petition].
7. The stand of the State in the reply filed before
the Learned Single Judge was that the road connectivity
was completed in the year 1970-71 by the Block
Development Authority and later-on it was handed over
to HPPWD for its preparation/renovation. At the time of
construction of the road, all the people of village,
including writ petitioner voluntarily offered their land
and never raised any objection and therefore, there was
the delay of 50 years as such, the appropriate remedy
was to approach the competent Court of Civil
jurisdiction.
-4- 2025:HHC:13247
8. The plea taken was that the land has been
utilized on account of the fact that the owners of the land
donated the land for construction of road keeping in view
the limited financial resources of the State. The writ
petitioner and his predecessors had not objected to its
utilization.
9. While controverting the pleadings, it was
submitted that in cases of all similarly situated persons
against the judgment in LPA the State has assailed the
same in SLP, which is stated to be pending. It has not
been brought to our notice that there is any stay in the
said case.
10. The benefit as such has been granted to
similarly situated persons. We are of the considered
opinion that the similar issue was considered by us
regarding the aspect of donation and the fact that no
material as such has been placed on record by the State
regarding any written consent taken by the land owners.
It is also not their case that documents as such are not
traceable on account of long delay. It is apparent that a
plea has been taken without any basis. The land owners
had never consented for the said acquisition.
-5- 2025:HHC:13247
11. In similar circumstances, we have dismissed a
Letters Patent Appeal No.43 of 2025, titled as State
of H.P. & Ors. Versus Avesh Stan and Ors. decided on
25.04.2025, however, though, in the said case the land
was acquired for construction of another road and there
was also an issue of delay and laches.
12. In 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. In Kalyani (Dead) Through LRs & Others
[supra], 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.
14. Learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court
had come to a similar conclusion that there is no
material on record to show that there is any voluntary
surrender of land and that the road was owned and
-6- 2025:HHC:13247
possessed by the Panchayat and thereafter handed over
to HPPWD. The directions were given to disburse the
amount by the Panchayat after determination by the
Collector for market value of the property. The matter
had been taken to the Division Bench, wherein, the
observations had come that there could be
a voluntary surrender and there need not be any formal
surrender.
15. The Apex Court came to the conclusion that
the Division Bench proceeded on wrong premises on
shifting the burden on landowners and that burden
would be on Panchayat/Municipality and there could be
no voluntary surrender similar and as such fall back
was made to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The judgment of the Constitutional Bench in K.T.
Plantation Private Limited and another Versus State
of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 was relied upon that for
the purpose of construction and widening of road, there
is no justification for not paying any compensation while
noticing that necessary representations had been made
at the earliest. The said principle of law would thus be
applicable regarding the right to seek compensation and
-7- 2025:HHC:13247
the absence of any written material on record that
surrender was voluntary. Therefore, for the reasons
given therein, we are of the considered opinion that there
is no plausible reason to interfere with the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge.
16. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(G.S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
May 06, 2025
[Shivender/Bhardwaj]
