State Of Hp And Others vs Baragi Ram And And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5831 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

State Of Hp And Others vs Baragi Ram And And Others on 21 May, 2025

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15761 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

LPA No. 242 of 2025 Decided on: 21.05.2025

State of HP and others ...Appellants.

Versus Baragi Ram and and others ....Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

State in the present Letters Patent Appeal

seeks consideration of the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge in CWP No.7550/2022 titled

Baragi Ram and others Vs. State of HP and others

dated 04.09.2023, wherein directions have been issued

to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks

under the relevant statute for the land which has been

utilized by the State for the construction of the road,

namely, Jarol-Khai Ghat via Behana.

2. The learned Single Judge noticed that the

respondents constructed a link road, namely, 'Jarol-Khai

Ghat via Behna' under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak

Yojna (hereinafter referred to as PMGSY") in the year

2003-2004. The respondents, vide notification had

ordered acquisition of three khasra numbers situated in

village Jyor-66 and Award No. 1/2020 dated 09.10.2020,

was also passed but other khasra numbers of the

adjoining village Mohal wherein the land of the

petitioners was situated were not acquired. Resultantly,

the judgments in Vidya Devi vs. 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, were taken into

consideration while issuing necessary directions 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, were fallen back upon to

take the support of Article 300A of the Constitution to

the effect that land owners cannot be deprived of the

right of property save by the authority of law.

3. The argument of the State was repelled that

there was implied consent as such and thus, on account

of delay and laches as the land owners remained silent

for 20 years, the compensation should not be paid since

the usage of the road had started in the year 2003-

2004. Counsel for the State further stressed on two

issues, i.e., implied consent and delay as such in

approaching the Court.

4. In similar situation, for the same road, we had

in LPA No. 168 of 2025 titled State of HP and

others versus Surya Kant decided on 16.05.2025

upheld the order of the learned Single Judge dated

09.01.2025. In the said case also, it was noticed that

there was a reference to CWP No. 3760/2009 titled

Durgi Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and

others decided on 05.07.2016 and the fact that there

was notification dated 11.10.2018 to acquire the land of

village Jyor-66 and the Award had been passed on

09.10.2020. It has also been noticed that the road as

such had been slowly added from the initial stage of 7

KMs up to 16 KMs and resultantly, we had come to the

concussion that the similar land owners as such had

been paid compensation and the judgment had attained

finality and therefore, issue of delay as such could not

be raised as the land of the petitioners in that case fell

on the stretch of 13 KMs to 16 KMs which is the last

utilized stretch.

5. A bare perusal of the pleadings in the writ

petition would go on go show that the judgment in

Durgi Devi's case (supra) which has been appended

as Annexure P7, has been relied upon apart from the

Award dated 09.10.2020 Annexure P-6, which pertains

to the land situated in village Jyor-66.

6. Written statement as such filed by the State

also admits in the same tenure that the road was

initially constructed up to 7 KMs and thereafter from

13KMs to 16 KMs and therefore, the argument as such

as has been raised that there is delay in approaching

the Court as such, is without any basis, especially when

the State has granted compensation to Durgi Devi, who

was also similarly situated to that of the respondents

herein. It is also admitted that length of 16 KMs stretch

of the road is the one which was constructed in the end

and it was admitted by the State that it could not have

been constructed without express consent of the land

owners. It is thus apparent that the issue of delay has

already been noticed in Durgi Devi's case (supra) that

the last stretch was utilized for the construction of the

said road.

7. Resultantly, having taken a view that the

similarly situated land owners are entitled to benefit of

compensation and the issue of delay as such for the

same stretch having been negatived, we do not find

any plausible reason to take a contrary view.

8. The issue of implied consent of the owners is

already settled in Civil Appeal No(s) 3189 of 2022,

Kalyanai (Dead) through LRs and others vs. The

Sulthan Bathery Municipality and 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 which had been 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.

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. 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.

11. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the

instant appeal is devoid of any merit, hence it is

dismissed along with pending applications, if any.

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge May 21, 2025.

(cm Thakur)