IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

LPA No. 866 of 2025

Date of decision: 12.12.2025

State of H.P. & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

Subhash Chand …Respondent

Coram o

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya L al Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants.: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate

uGeneral.

G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral)

CMP(M) No. 1825 of 2025

1. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Superintending Engineer,

the delay of 261 days in filing appeal is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

LPA No. 866 of 2025

2. Consideration is sought of the judgment dated 24.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2538 of 2021, titled as Subhash Chand vs. State of H. P. & Ors., whereby directions have been issued to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today and take the same to its logical conclusion within a period of one

year thereafter.

3. The reason which prevailed with the learned Single Judge that the land was utilised for construction of Thana- Premnagar road via Turan, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla was that respondents had already utilised the land falling in Khasra Nos. 461/1, 462/1, 407/1 and 410/1, for the cfonstruction of the road, which was started in the year 1990 and completed in the year, 2001. The case of the petitioner was that there was non- payment of compensatiron for the utilization of his land comprised in Khasra Nos. 500 and 501 and on account of the said fact, as there was no denial by the State that the said Khasra NCos. was not utilised, which was in the ownership of the land owner-writ petitioner, the directions have been issued for achquisition of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 500 and 501, by gholding that land falling in other four Khasra numbers had already been acquired for the said purpose.

4. Reliance has been placed upon the settled principle of law laid down in Hari Krishna Mandi Trust vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 356, and Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 508, apart from other judgments including a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 6581 of 2021, titled as Labdhu Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on

28.06.2023.

5. Counsel for the State has tried to convince us that demarcation had not been conducted as such in the presence of the State and, therefore, there was no such proof that the land had been used. We are not in agreement with the arguments raised especially the plea that land meafsuring 12 biswas falling in the two khasra numbers had also been acquired and utilised, for which compensation was sought. The land owner was very clear regarding the fact thrat Khasra Nos. 500 and 501 situated in Mohal Sheelagaon, Tehsil Jubbal was subject matter of acquisition, for which he has not been paid the compensation. There is nCo denial to this aspect that the compensation was paid for the other four khasra numbers, rather there is a plea that the pehtitioner did not raise any objection for acquisition of left out gkhasra numbers during hearing under Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and was satisfied with the acquisition and rates of land prevailing in the area and the petition after a period of 12 years was an after thought.

6. In such circumstances, there is tacit admission that land has been utilised. Even otherwise the stand as such in the written statement is that compensation was paid for the acquired land. Thus, apparently the land owner at later stage realized that land falling in two khasra numbers had been utilised, for which he had not been given due compensation and thus, approached the Court. It is also apparent from the letter dated 21.10.2010, whereby respondent No. 2 had admitted that the land had been inadvertently left out and perusal of the said communication would