##PAGE1##

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9859 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

LPA No. 51 of 2025 Decid ed on: 30.03.2026

State of HP and others ...Appellants.

Versus Goverdhan alias Goverdhan Dass ....Respondent.

Coram:

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

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice

The present appeal takes exception to the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.10261/2023 titled Goverdhan alias Goverdhan Dass vs. State of HP and others dated 10.12.2024, whereby directions have been issued to initiate acquisition proceedings, keeping in view the fact that the land of the petitioner land had been utilized for the purpose of the construction of the road, namely “Shat to Jalugran” falling in khasra No. 834, 835 and 836 situated in Mohal Jallu, sub-

::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 20:18:53 :::CIS

2

Tehsil Jari, District Kullu, HP., within four weeks under the relevant Statute vis-a-vis the land of the petitioner and

award just and fair compensation.

2. The learned Single Judge noticed that the plea of the writ petitioner was that his land fhad been utilized in the year 1999 for the said purpose but the acquisition proceedings had not been initiated. 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, 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 the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the land owner cannot be deprived of his right of property save by the authority of law.

3. The stand of the State as such that the land owner remained silent for more than 25 years and the writ petition was barred by delay and laches and there was implied consent as such of the land owner, was rejected by

::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 20:18:53 :::CIS

3

the learned Single Judge. It had further been submitted that the road in question had been constructed on the persistent demand of the residents of the area without any claim for

compensation.

4. Mr. Gobind Korla, learnefd Additional Advocate General for the State has sought to argue on the same lines. However, we are not in agreement with the said defence which had been set up. The specific plea as such was that the compensation had been paid qua other land, namely Phati Jalu” to the other land owners but the respondents had not acquired the land in khasra Nos. 834, 835 and 836 falling in Mohal Jallu. It is also the case as such that Award No. 4 of 2009 dated 20.08.2009, had been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and compensation had been paid

Hto the other land owners on account of the Notification dated 07.01.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure P-2 and P-3), respectively.

5. Perusal of the said Notification would go on to show that the same was for construction of the road from “Shat to Jallugran” for the area measuring 5-14-17 bighas and resultantly the land owners as such had set up the

claim.

::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 20:18:53 :::CIS

4

6. The stand of the State in the reply as such was that the petitioner had never raised any objection for construction of the road and voluntarily surrendered the same and hence, he was beneficiary of the road connectivity. However, the acquisitifon vide Award No. 4 of 2009 was admitted on the ground that the said land owners had resisted the construction of the road. It is thus apparent that for the same purpose, similarly situated persons have been granted benefit of compensation for their land on account of procedure prescribed under the law which was ut