JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. LPA No. 79 of 2017 & CMP Nos. 5546 and 5547 of 2017. 1. In view of the orders passed on the previous date, we have taken-up the main appeal itself for final disposal. 2. As a matter of fact, vide judgment under challenge, learned Single Judge has directed the appellants-State to ascertain the total area of the land belonging to respondent-writ petitioner Bhoop Ram, utilized for construction of ‘Mauta-Bagshar’ road and thereafter to acquire the same as well as make payment of the compensation to him. In case the land of the petitioner is not required for the construction of road change the alignment thereof and hand over the possession to the original petitioner. 3. The grouse of the appellants-State as brought to this Court in the present appeal, however, is that the road on the land belonging to the petitioner has been constructed with his consent and to his knowledge and notice; however, admittedly written consent has not been obtained from the petitioner before construction of the road. The law on the point is no more res integra as the apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9105 of 2015 {SLP (C) No. 2373 of 2014}, Raj Kumar versus State of H.P. and Others, a case with similar facts, has directed the State of Himachal Pradesh, as under:- 1. The Deputy Commissioner Collector, Solan shall undertake a verification and determine the exact extent of land utilized for construction of road in question out of Survey No. in which the appellant holds a share and thereby determine the exact extent of land which the appellant has been deprived of on account of such construction/utilization. 2. Upon determination of the extent of land of which the appellant has been deprived of by reason of construction of the road in question, the Deputy Commissioner shall determine the amount of compensation payable to him based on the amount determined towards compensation in Award No.10 of 2008 relating to the land acquired for the very same road in favour of other owners including Kanwar Singh having regard to the classification of the land. 3. Upon determination of the amount so payable the Deputy Commissioner Collector shall disburse the said amount within a period of three months from the date the determination is completed. 3. Upon determination of the amount so payable the Deputy Commissioner Collector shall disburse the said amount within a period of three months from the date the determination is completed. The payment of the amount so determined shall represent the amount due and payable to the appellant in full and final settlement of all his claims towards the value of the land utilized for the construction of the road. In case however the payment is not made within the time so stipulated even after determination, the amount so determined shall start earning interest @12% p.a. from the date the period of three months expires.” 4. In the case before the Hon’ble apex Court also the stand of the appellant-State was that the road under ‘Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna’ was constructed after having the consent of Raj Kumar, the petitioner/owner of the land in that case. The apex Court, however, has observed that for want of a specific assertion regarding donation or documentary evidence in support thereof, it cannot be believed that the petitioner had consented for construction of road over the land belonging to him. Therefore, we find no illegality or irregularity in the judgment under challenge in this appeal as the point in issue rather is covered in favour of the respondent-original petitioner Bhoop Ram by the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court supra. A Single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3090 of 2009, titled Neem Chand versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 5.7.2016, after placing reliance on the judgment in Raj Kumar’s case supra has also taken a similar view of the matter. Therefore, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Both the applications shall also stand disposed of.