IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 87 of 2026 .

Date of decision: 28.04.2026 The Government of H.P., .

through the Secretary HPPWD& another H ...Appellants.

Versus Mangal Singh ...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

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

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 03.12.2024, as passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 21/13 of 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants/defendants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2024, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 269-1 of 2021, titled as Mangal Singh vs. Government of HP through the Secretary HPPWD & another, have been affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see

the judgment?

permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction was partly decreed by directing the State to pay compensation to the plaintiff alongwith statutory benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent prohibitory, mandatory injunction and coompensation in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jhandu tta, District-Bilaspur, HP on the ground that the defendants/State constructed a road, namely, Panol-Jhandutta-Nand-Nagraon through the land being owned and possessed by the plaintiff comprised in Khewat No.01, Khatauni No. 01, Khasra No. 112/29, 113/29, 114/29, 89/27, 91/24 , 100/25, 105/25 and 126/33 measuring 03-16-00 bigha situated at Village Nagraon, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.

3. It was averred by the plaintiff that the Government notification was duly issued for acquisition of lands of some of the adjoining villages but no steps were taken to make the payment to the affected persons including plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the officials of the appellants/State to pay the amount of compensation on account of utilization of the land of the present respondent but except for making assurances, no steps were taken by the appellants/State in that regard. It was further averred that the defendants are very influential, resourceful and clever persons and are trying to grab the suit land and are also trying to dig road, change the nature threatening to cut trees and destroy the crops without any right, title and interest over the suit land .

4. As per plaintiff, soervants and agents of the appellants/ defendants are th reatening to dig the adjacent land to the road, to destroy the crops, to cut the trees, break stones, and to change the nature of the suit land. Therefore, decree for prohibitory, mandatory injunction and compensation was sought from the learned trial Court.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants/State by raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, limitation, cause of action, valuation, jurisdiction, estoppel etc.

6. On merits, it was averred that the road in question had been constructed by Gram Panchayat in the year 1995 with verbal/express consent of the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest including other land owners. It is further submitted that defendants started maintaining the said road during the year 2002 after which HRTC buses started plying over the said road. The total length of the road is 21.250 kms on both sides and the land falls in Village Nagraon. The road was constructed in the year 1995 by the Gram Panchayat with the express/implied/verbal consent of the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest. The road is in existence since 1995 and has been passed for the vehicular traffic during 2002. Since the road was constructed with the consent of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is estoppoed to file the present suit. The defendants have spent huge a mount to provid