JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CMP (M) No.1375 of 2019 in LPA No.50 of 2020 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has refused to condone the delay in preferring the LPA against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.771 of 2016, the State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.

2. Though the present appeal is against the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court refusing to condone the delay in preferring the LPA, instead of remanding the matter to the Division Bench to decide the appeal on merits and to consider the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Judge, we have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties on merits against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

2.1 That the respondents herein original writ petitioners filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court being CWP No.771 of 2016 and prayed for the following reliefs :

"(i) That the respondents may be directed to produce entire record in connection with construction work of road from village Banuti to village Loharb in Tehsil and District Shimla along with entire record of the remaining portion from Loharb to Mauja Pahal Tehsil Sunni showing the process and proceeding which were started for acquisition of land and for payment of amount of compensation.

(ii) That the respondent may be directed not to deprive the petitioners of their property without adopting due process of law and that they should act in accordance with law and make payment of amount of compensation as per provision law.

(iii) That in case the respondents are, not ready and willing to start and complete acquisition proceeding and make payment of amount of compensation in that event they may be directed to hand over the physical possession of the land in question to the petitioner and also they may be held liable to pay use and occupation charges from the period from 1996 to date.

(iv) Any other suitable relief as consider just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the petition may kindly be granted to petitioners.”

2.2 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the land in question was utilized by the State for the construction of Banuti to Pahal Road as far as back in the year 1996, however, till date, no compensation in view of the same has been paid to them. The petition was opposed by the State by filing a reply contending inter alia that at the time when the road was constructed through the land of the writ petitioners, it was on their request and on the condition that they will not claim any compensation. It was submitted that however at that time no written document was executed in this respect. It was submitted in the reply that due to this reason the construction work of the road was completed without acquisition proceedings by the State Government. It was also submitted that the road was constructed on the demand of public of the area including the writ petitioners. It was submitted that had there been any truth in the plea of the writ petitioners, the writ petitioners would have raised the objection during the long period of 20 years.

2.3 Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners as well as the State and taking into consideration the fact that some portion of the land of the writ petitioners has been utilized for the purpose of construction of the road and no compensation has been paid and the land has been used without acquiring the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1894’), the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to initiate the process for acquisition of the land of the writ petitioners in accordance with la