2026:HHC:7943 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 169 of 2025 .

Date of decision: 17.03.2026.

The Government of H.P. & another ....Appellants.

Versus Pyaru ...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : rMr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

For the respondent : Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 21.08.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 412/13 of 2023, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellants has been dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 31.07.2023 in Civil Suit No.

186-1 of 2021/2018, has been affirmed.

2. The respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff before the first Court in the civil suit. The parties

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the

judgment?

hereinafter, for convenience, will be referred to by the same status as they held before the first Court. P 3. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff owns land in Village Dhrarshani, Post Office Rishikesh, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Defendants constructed “Auhar-Kohina” road and during such process utilized the land of plaintiff without acquisition and payment of compensation. Plaintiff filed the suit seeking decree of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction.

4. Defendants contested the suit by raising phreliminary objections qua of maintainability, estoppel, gnon joinder of necessary parties, valuation and limitation etc.

5. It was submitted that the road had been constructed in the year 1981. Plaintiff was to file suit within three years and due to long delay the suit was alleged to be not maintainable.

6. Learned trial Court held the plaintiff entitled to the relief and defendants were directed to take steps for acquisition of land of plaintiff utilized for construction of “Auhar-Kohina” road and to disburse the assessed compensation to him. The learned trial Court aPlso directed that if the State failed to pay the compensation to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff shall be entitled for the relief of injunction and possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nno. 579/495/201/2, Kita 2, Khewat No.121, Khatoni NO. 122 min, measuring 1-17 bighas and Khasra No. 303/1/1/2, land measuring 0-11 bighas and Khasra No. 263/2, land measuring 0-10 bighas, situated in village Dhrarshani, Post Office Rishikesh, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.

7h. The defendants filed appeal under Section 96 of gthe Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.08.2024, hence the present appeal.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on the case file.

9. With the consent of the parties, the case is finally heard at admission stage.

10. The Court of the first instance as also the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that thPe land of the plaintiff was utilized for construction of “Auhar-Kohina” road without payment of compensation to him. No dispute has been raised as to such findings of fact. It has only been contended on behalf of the defendants that the suit filed by the plaintiff after almost 38 years was hopelessly time barred. In alternative, it was pleaded that plaintiff having remained silent for such a long period was estopped from raising the claim. Principle of acquiescence has also been sought against him on the premise that the plaintiff whas aware about the construction of road and the road was gconstructed with his implied consent and now he cannot turn around to raise objections against the construction of road.

11. Defendants are constituents of a welfare State. It is settled that the welfare State cannot claim adverse possession against its citize