Himachal Pradesh High Court

Lpa No. 215/2025 vs Chhaju Ram on 16 May, 2025

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:14210 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

LPA No. 215 of 2025 & LPA No. 220 of 2025.

Reserved on: 6th and 7th May, 2025 Pronounced on: 16.05.2025

1. LPA No. 215/2025.

State of HP and others ...Appellants.

                         Versus
Chhaju Ram                                    ....Respondent.

2. LPA No. 220/2025.
State of HP and others                            ...Appellants.
                         Versus
Gian Chand                                        ....Respondent.

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 Appellant(s): Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

Since common question of facts and law are

involved in both these Letters Patent Appeals, hence

they are taken up together for disposal.

2. Consideration in these two set of Letters

Patent Appeals is to the judgments passed by the

learned Single Judge in CWP No.4256/2024 titled

Chhaju Ram vs. State of HP and others dated

29.10.2024 (subject matter of LPA No. 215 of 2025) and

in CWP No. 2786/2023 titled Gian Chand versus

State of HP and others decided on 12.01.2024,

subject matter of LPA No. 220 of 2025), whereby the

writ petitions filed by the petitioner(s) therein were

allowed.

3. The learned Single Judge while granting the

relief as such to the petitioner in CWP No. 4256/2024

titled Chhaju Ram vs. State of HP and others dated

29.10.2024 (subject matter of LPA No. 215 of 2025)

directed the State to initiate acquisition proceedings

within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-a-vis

land of the petitioner and thereafter to pay just and fair

compensation qua the land of the petitioner within a

period of two months since the same had been utilized

for the construction of the road namely, Pung to Taleli

via Chai Ka Dora.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed that in the

year 1990-1991 road was constructed, namely, Pung to

Taleli via Ghangnu under the Pradhan Mantri Gram

Sadak Yojna and while placing reliance upon the

judgment 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. The relief as such was

granted. Reliance on the judgment in State of

Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2

SCC 68, was also placed. Having recorded that there

was nothing at hand to substantiate the stand of the

State that the land was ever donated and offered by the

petitioner for the construction of the road under the

said Scheme, therefore, defence of the State was

rejected.

5. The State has raised the issue of limitation

and also the fact of voluntary surrender of land. A

perusal of the writ record would go on to show that it

was the case of the land owners that the road was

constructed from Pung to Chai Ka Dora in the year

1987-88 and compensation was paid to the persons

whose land was utilized for the construction of the said

road in Mohal Ghangnu from Pung to Chai Ka Dora by

the department but the compensation had not been

paid to the persons whose land was utilized for Chai Ka

Dora to Taleli. Thus, the petitioner being adversely

affected, since the same had been done in the year

1990-1991, he had requested the department for grant

of compensation but of no avail. The petitioner being a

poor villager as such pleaded that he was entitled to

seek the compensation and invoked the jurisdiction of

the writ Court.

6. Now adverting to Gian Chand's case in CWP

No. 2786 of 2023, (subject matter of LPA No. 215 of

2025), another learned Single Judge has placed reliance

on the judgment of Manbhari and others vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh and others CWP No. 2948 of

2023 decided on 19.11.2023 and therefore, granted

the same relief. The writ record in Gian Chand's case

would also go on to show that plea of limitation was

taken as such and compensation was not paid.

7. In the Reply to CWP No. 4256 of 2024 Chhaju

Ram's case filed by the State, the plea taken was that it

was after a period of more than 42 years the petitioner

has made an attempt to get unjust benefit as the

vehicles were plying on the road since 1980-1981 and

there was voluntary surrender of the land in favour of

the State. It was admitted that the length of the road

was 14.3000 km. The period of delay as such was

highlighted.

8. Reply on merits in Gian Chand's case in

CWP No. 2786/2023, would also go on to show that the

road was made fit for the vehicles only on 11.10.2000

and therefore, pleadings of the State that there was 25

years delay as such in approaching the authorities is

apparently contradictory.

9. It has been brought to our notice that in

similar circumstances in CWP No. 2948 of 2023 titled

Manbhari and others vs. State of HP and others,

the writ petition was allowed on 19.09.2023 for the

same stretch of land. The learned Single Judge noticed

that some of the land owners have been paid

compensation after initiating acquisition proceedings

and therefore, had granted similar relief as such to the

petitioners by recording that the land was never

donated as there was nothing to show that there was

any gift deed in favour of the State for the construction

of road under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna.

10. The settled position of law laid down 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

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.

11. The State has not been able to rebut the fact

that the appeal filed against the said judgment of the

learned Single Judge in Manbhari's case has been

dismissed on 10.09.2024 in LPA No. 233 of 2024

along with connected matters. The said order reads as

under:

"In all these cases, the land of the respondents had been utilized by the appellants for constructing roads without acquiring the same and without paying any compensation to the respondents.

2. Therefore, the respondents approached this Court and sought directions to the appellants to acquire their lands and pay them compensation in accordance with law in a time bound manner.

3. The appellants sought to oppose grant of relief to the respondents on the ground of delay and laches, and also on the pretext that while the road was being constructed, the respondents had not raised any objection, but had voluntarily donated the land for construction of the road.

4. The learned Single rejected the contentions of the appellants/State by placing reliance on the judgments

of the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, wherein, the Supreme Court had held that the plea of delay and laches cannot be raised in the case of a continuing cause of action, especially in land acquisition matters, where acts of the State shock the conscience of the Court; and that to forcibly dispossess a person of his private property without following due process of law, would be violative of a "Human Right" and also a "Constitutional Right" under Article 300A of the Constitution of India; and the plea of oral consent to the acquisition has no legal sanction and cannot be countenanced.

5. We completely agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgments and find no merit in the appeals. Accordingly, all these appeals are dismissed. No costs.