IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 30 of 2026 .

Date of decision: 04.05.2026 The Government of H.P., .

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

Versus Randeep Singh & another ...Respondents.

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 respondents : Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 29.10.2024, as passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 14/13 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. 267-1 of 2021, titled as Randeep Singh @ Ranjit Singh & another vs. Government of HP through the Secretary HPPWD & another, have been affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see

the judgment?

plaintiffs/respondents for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction was partly decreed by directing the State to pay compensation to the plaintiffs alongwith statutory benefits.

2. Brief facts of the c ase are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a souit for permanent prohibitory, mandatory injunction and compensation in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, 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 plaintiffs comprising in Khatauni No.5, Khasr a Nos. 74/17, 75/17, 23 and 77/26 measuring 07-09-00 bighas, situated at Village Nagraon, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.

3. It was averred by the plaintiffs that the Government notification was duly issued for acquisition of some of the lands of the adjoining villages but no steps were taken to make the payment to the affected persons including plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested the officials of the appellants/State to pay the amount of compensation on account of utilization of the land of the present respondents 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. They are trying to grab the suit land and 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 plaintiffs, oservants 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 plaintiffs and their 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 plaintiffs 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 wit h the consent of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plainotiffs are estopped to file the present suit. The defendan ts have spent huge amount