Under Article 300A of the Constitution, the State cannot acquire private land without compensation. The burden of proving voluntary surrender of land lies with the State, and the principle of parity ensures similarly situated landowners receive equal compensation regardless of delay.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice

CMP (M) 1736/2025.

In view of the averments and reasons contained in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 189 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

LPA No. 111 of 2026.

2. The present order takes exception to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.4180/2021 titled Krishan Kumar Vs. State of HP and others dated 27.11.2024, whereby directions have been issued to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings, within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-a-vis land of the petitioner and thefreafter, just and fair compensation qua the same be awarded to the petitioner and needful was ordered to be done expeditiously, preferably within four months.

3. The learned Single Judge noticed that the plea of the writ petitioner was that his land comprised in khasra No. 14, measuring 00-1-45 hectares, situated at his Dogri namely Kataili, Patwar Circle Dhar, Up-Mohal Kataili, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, HP came to be used by the respondents for the construction of road namely “Zero H Point (NH) Shingla-Halipad to Besli-Makroli” in the year 1992-1993. Since similarly situated persons had received due amount of compensation on account of use of their land for the construction of the said road in question, the petitioner had also filed various representations to the department to pay compensation but no action had been taken by the respondents. Therefore, while placing reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court 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, State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683 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, and taking the support of Article 300A of the Constitution of India the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the land owners cannot be deprived of their right of property save by the authority of law.

4. The stand of the State in the written statement was that the construction of the road in question had been done on the demand of the petitioner and their predecessor H and public of the area to provide connectivity of the road to their houses and land. The question of acquiring the land in such circumstances therefore did not arise. The remedy as such was to approach the Court of Civil Jurisdiction and that the road was constructed in the year 1992, and there was voluntary surrender as such of the land. The petitioner had remained silent for about 33 years and at such belated stage, the petition was not maintainable. The village of the petitioner, namely, Besari was covered by another road therefore, respondents were ready to discontinue the present road. No demarcation had been placed on record to establish as to how much land had been utilized and thus the writ petition was contested. f

5. Reply was however silent regarding the plea that similarly situated person Jawahar Lal had filed CWP No. 1510 of 2017, seeking directions for the grant of compensation that his land had also been utilized for construction of the road, who was similarly situated and he had been paid compensation in view of directions contained in the aforesaid judgment (CWP No. 1510 of 2017) (Ann