Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Hp And Others vs Surya Kant on 16 May, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:14620 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
LPA No. 168 of 2025
Decided on: 16.05.2025
State of HP and others ...Appellants.
Versus
Surya Kant ....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. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional
Advocate General.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
Consideration in the present Letters Patent
Appeal filed by the State is to the judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1627/2023 titled
Surya Kant vs. State of HP and others dated
09.01.2025, 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
acquisition was for the land falling in Mohal Behana sub-
Tehsil Dehar, District Mandi, HP and link road had to be
constructed in the year 2003-2004. The respondents,
vide notification had ordered acquisition of three khasra
numbers situated in village Jyor and award No. 1/2020
was also passed but other khasra numbers of the
adjoining village Mohal where the land was situated
were not acquired. It is in such circumstances, the
stand of the State that the road had been constructed
on account of voluntary donation by the land owners
was rejected. 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 to take the support of Article 300A of the
Constitution to the effect that persons cannot be
deprived of the right of property save by the authority
of law.
3. The Counsel for the State principally argued
the issue of delay and laches firstly, and secondly that
the land as such was voluntarily donated therefore, the
land owners were estopped from raising challenge to
the acquisition proceedings.
4. A perusal of the writ record would go on to
show that it was the case of the land owners that the
construction of the road was done in the year 2003-
2004 and some other set of land owners had filed CWP
No.3760/2009 titled Durgi Devi versus State of
Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on
05.07.2016, resultantly, the Notification had been
issued on 11.10.2018 to acquire the said land of the
adjoining village Jyor. The award dated 09.10.2020 was
also attached as Annexure P-3.
5. A perusal of the said Award would go on to
show that the acquisition was for the construction of
Jarol Behana Road in village Jyor and the acquisition
proceedings were initiated under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013. In such
circumstances, the petition had been filed before this
Court seeking the similar relief.
6. In the reply filed by the State stock reply as
such was taken. It was argued that it has come on the
record that initially the road was as such only for 7/0
K.Ms. in the year 1989. The allegation was that the
people of the area had voluntary come forward to offer
their land for the purpose of road connectivity and were
desirous of such benefits. The subsequent portion from
K.M.7/0 to K.M.13/0 was constructed in the year 2000
and opened for traffic on 10.11.2000 and another 3
Kms. were thereafter added up to 15 Kms. during the
year 2004-2005. It is thus apparent that the
construction of the road had continued since the year
2004-2005 and therefore the issue of delay as such
cannot be raised now since it has been admitted by the
respondent in para 3 of the written statement that the
land of the petitioner falls under the stretch in KM 13 to
KM 16, which is the last utilized stretch. It has also been
admitted that Smt. Durgi Devi petitioner in CWP
No.3760/2009 (supra) has been paid compensation
and the judgment in the said case had attained finality.
It is thus apparent that when the similarly situated
person have been granted the benefit of the acquisition
proceedings, the other land owners cannot as such be
denied the said benefit.
7. The issue of the land having been donated or
surrendered as such had to be substantiated by
showing that there was any gift deed or written consent
for the construction of the road by the land owners,
which the State had failed to do.
8. 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 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. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion
that there is no reason as such to take a different view,
once the similarly situated persons have got the same
relief and the award has been passed by the State by
taking affirmative action.
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 16, 2025.
(cm Thakur)
