Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1035 (HP)

State of HP v. Chhaju Ram

2025-05-16

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, RANJAN SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both these Letters Patent Appeals, hence they are taken up together for disposal. 2. Consideration in these two set of Letters Patent Appeals is to the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.4256/2024 titled Chhaju Ram vs. State of HP and others dated 29.10.2024 (subject matter of LPA No. 215 of 2025) and in CWP No. 2786/2023 titled Gian Chand versus State of HP and others decided on 12.01.2024, subject matter of LPA No. 220 of 2025), whereby the writ petitions filed by the petitioner(s) therein were allowed. 3. The learned Single Judge while granting the relief as such to the petitioner in CWP No. 4256/2024 titled Chhaju Ram vs. State of HP and others dated 29.10.2024 (subject matter of LPA No. 215 of 2025) directed the State to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-a-vis land of the petitioner and thereafter to pay just and fair compensation qua the land of the petitioner within a period of two months since the same had been utilized for the construction of the road namely, Pung to Taleli via Chai Ka Dora. 4. The learned Single Judge noticed that in the year 1990-1991 road was constructed, namely, Pung to Taleli via Ghangnu under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna and while placing reliance upon the judgment 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 . The relief as such was granted. Reliance on the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68, was also placed. Having recorded that there was nothing at hand to substantiate the stand of the State that the land was ever donated and offered by the petitioner for the construction of the road under the said Scheme, therefore, defence of the State was rejected. 5. The State has raised the issue of limitation and also the fact of voluntary surrender of land. 5. The State has raised the issue of limitation and also the fact of voluntary surrender of land. A perusal of the writ record would go on to show that it was the case of the land owners that the road was constructed from Pung to Chai Ka Dora in the year 1987-88 and compensation was paid to the persons whose land was utilized for the construction of the said road in Mohal Ghangnu from Pung to Chai Ka Dora by the department but the compensation had not been paid to the persons whose land was utilized for Chai Ka Dora to Taleli. Thus, the petitioner being adversely affected, since the same had been done in the year 1990-1991, he had requested the department for grant of compensation but of no avail. The petitioner being a poor villager as such pleaded that he was entitled to seek the compensation and invoked the jurisdiction of the writ Court. 6. Now adverting to Gian Chand’s case in CWP No. 2786 of 2023, (subject matter of LPA No. 215 of 2025), another learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgment of Manbhari and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others CWP No. 2948 of 2023 decided on 19.11.2023 and therefore, granted the same relief. The writ record in Gian Chand’s case would also go on to show that plea of limitation was taken as such and compensation was not paid. 7. In the Reply to CWP No. 4256 of 2024 Chhaju Ram’s case filed by the State, the plea taken was that it was after a period of more than 42 years the petitioner has made an attempt to get unjust benefit as the vehicles were plying on the road since 1980-1981 and there was voluntary surrender of the land in favour of the State. It was admitted that the length of the road was 14.3000 km. The period of delay as such was highlighted. 8. Reply on merits in Gian Chand’s case in CWP No. 2786/2023, would also go on to show that the road was made fit for the vehicles only on 11.10.2000 and therefore, pleadings of the State that there was 25 years delay as such in approaching the authorities is apparently contradictory. 9. The period of delay as such was highlighted. 8. Reply on merits in Gian Chand’s case in CWP No. 2786/2023, would also go on to show that the road was made fit for the vehicles only on 11.10.2000 and therefore, pleadings of the State that there was 25 years delay as such in approaching the authorities is apparently contradictory. 9. It has been brought to our notice that in similar circumstances in CWP No. 2948 of 2023 titled Manbhari and others vs. State of HP and others the writ petition was allowed on 19.09.2023 for the same stretch of land. The learned Single Judge noticed that some of the land owners have been paid compensation after initiating acquisition proceedings and therefore, had granted similar relief as such to the petitioners by recording that the land was never donated as there was nothing to show that there was any gift deed in favour of the State for the construction of road under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna. 10. The settled position of law laid down in Civil Appeal NO(s) 3189 of 2022, Kalyanai (Dead) through LRs and others vs. The Sulthan Bathery Municipality and others, wherein the Apex Court was dealing with the similar situation, wherein, land had been utilized for construction/ widening of bypass road and the landowners had been given assurance that they would get adequate compensation for their land utilized. The Supreme Court held that the onus as such could not be shifted on the land owners qua the donation aspect which had been done by the High Court in that case. 11. The State has not been able to rebut the fact that the appeal filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge in Manbhari’s case has been dismissed on 10.09.2024 in LPA No. 233 of 2024 along with connected matters. The said order reads as under: “In all these cases, the land of the respondents had been utilized by the appellants for constructing roads without acquiring the same and without paying any compensation to the respondents. 2. Therefore, the respondents approached this Court and sought directions to the appellants to acquire their lands and pay them compensation in accordance with law in a time bound manner. 3. 2. Therefore, the respondents approached this Court and sought directions to the appellants to acquire their lands and pay them compensation in accordance with law in a time bound manner. 3. The appellants sought to oppose grant of relief to the respondents on the ground of delay and laches, and also on the pretext that while the road was being constructed, the respondents had not raised any objection, but had voluntarily donated the land for construction of the road. 4. The learned Single rejected the contentions of the appellants/State by placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, wherein, the Supreme Court had held that the plea of delay and laches cannot be raised in the case of a continuing cause of action, especially in land acquisition matters, where acts of the State shock the conscience of the Court; and that to forcibly dispossess a person of his private property without following due process of law, would be violative of a “Human Right” and also a “Constitutional Right” under Article 300A of the Constitution of India; and the plea of oral consent to the acquisition has no legal sanction and cannot be countenanced. 5. We completely agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgments and find no merit in the appeals. Accordingly, all these appeals are dismissed. No costs. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 12. Therefore, we do not see any reason to take a contrary view as we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner(s) being similarly situated persons, the said benefit cannot be denied to them. Therefore, it would be highly unjust to pay the compensation in one set of cases and deny the same to another set of cases, as one set of cases similarly situated persons would be deprived of the same benefit. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we do not feel it a fit case as such to deny the relief to the petitioner(s) only on the ground of delay and laches. 13. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2025, State of H.P. and others vs. Charan Dass decided on 01.03.2025 and Letters Patent Appeal No.183 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. 13. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2025, State of H.P. and others vs. Charan Dass decided on 01.03.2025 and Letters Patent Appeal No.183 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Amar Singh decided on 21.04.2025, we have given detailed reasons as such, as to why no ground is made out to interfere in such matters, keeping in view the law settled by the Apex Court. 14. Therefore, for the reasons given therein, we are of the considered opinion that there is no plausible reason to interfere with the judgment’s passed by the learned Single Judge’s, once similarly situated persons have also got the same relief. 15. As a corollary, the instant appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.