JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State against judgment dated 18.04.2023, passed in CWP No.4484 of 2019, titled Fedru Ram (since deceased) through LRs and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the petition, directing the appellants-State to initiate acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the respondents, utilized by the State for construction of road, namely “Udho-Niwas-Jakhar-Bartul”. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “4. That being the case and further taking into consideration the fact that the grievance of the petitioner in the present case is also that their land was utilized in the year 1995-96 for the purpose of construction of Udho-Niwas-Jakhar-Bartu Road, in Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla H.P. without acquiring the same in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the directions passed by Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 74 of 2019, as affirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 155 of 2022, shall be construed to have been passed in the present case also and the respondents are directed to take steps to acquire the land the petitioners, which has been utilized for the purpose of construction of Udho-Niwas- Jakhar-Bartu, in Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. and due and admissible compensation be paid to the petitioners by completing formalities within a period of six months. It goes without saying that in view of this order passed by the Court, the order passed by the competent authority, i.e. office order dated 29.09.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.” 2. Parties to the lis are being referred as per their status in the writ petition. 3. Present appeal has been filed on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled for relief on the ground of delay and latches. 4. It is undisputed that land of the petitioner was utilized by the State for construction “Udho-Niwas-Jakhar-Bartu” road, through the Public Works Department, and the petitioner had approached the Court seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the land utilized for construction of aforesaid road. 5. 4. It is undisputed that land of the petitioner was utilized by the State for construction “Udho-Niwas-Jakhar-Bartu” road, through the Public Works Department, and the petitioner had approached the Court seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the land utilized for construction of aforesaid road. 5. Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration decision of this High Court in CWP No. 74 of 2019 titled Hem Raj Mehta and others vs. State of HP affirmed by Division Bench of this High Court in LPA No. 155 of 2024. 6. Similar view has been taken in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986) 2 SCC 68 ; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683 ; Swaraj Abhiyan (I) vs. Union of India and Ors. (2016)7 SCC 498 ; Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. and others, (2020) 2 SCC 569 ; Hari Krishana Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 9 SCC 356 ; D.B. Basnett vs Collector East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr., (2020)4 SCC 572 ; B.K. Ravichandra and Ors vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021)14 SCC 503; and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508 ; Civil Appeal No.1278 of 2023, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv and another, decided on 24.2.2023 , as well as judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.5928 of 2022, titled Vir Sain v. State of H.P. and others; and CWP No.1966 of 2010, decided on 12 th September, 2013, titled Shankar Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh. 7. 7. In similar matters, identical appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No.40 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Ramesh Kumar, decided on 27 th February, 2024; LPA No.24 of 2019, titled as State of HP vs. Baldev Singh and others, decided on 27 th March, 2024; LPA No.144 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Karam Singh, decided on 27 th May, 2024; LPA No.151 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Prem Nath, decided on 12 th June, 2024; LPA No.154 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Sohan Lal, decided on 14 th June, 2024; LPA No.177 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Satdev Sharma & others, decided on 1 st July, 2024; LPA No.230 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Chet Ram & others, decided on 2 nd September, 2024; LPA No.303 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Vishal Kumar & others, decided on 24 th September, 2024; and LPA No.382 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Om Parkash and another, decided on 26 th November, 2024, LPA No. 87 of 2025 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Raju alias Rajinder decided on 25.03.2025; and LPA No. 114 of 2025 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Rajinder Singh decided on 25.03.2025 by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No.10492 of 2023, titled Dharnidhar Mishre (D) and another vs. State of Bihar and others, and Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024, titled Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others. 8. Similar view has been taken by Division Benches of this High Court in LPA No.321 of 2024 , titled State of H.P. and others v. Gian Chand and others, decided on 3.1.2025 ; and LPA No.68 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Charan Dass , decided on 1.3.2025. 9. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not able to point out any ground indicating that present case is not squarely covered by aforesaid verdicts of the Court. 10. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any other perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. 11. We consider it fit to record that State is preferring the appeals despite dismissal of their similar appeals in identical matters. 10. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any other perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. 11. We consider it fit to record that State is preferring the appeals despite dismissal of their similar appeals in identical matters. Such conduct is not in consonance with the Litigation Policy adopted by the State of HP which is causing wasting the time and energy of the State as well as the Court. Though exemplary cost deserves to be imposed, however, taking lenient view, we are not imposing any cost. 12. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with direction that consequential action, in terms of judgment dated 26.12.2024, passed in CWP No.4484 of 2019, titled Fedru Ram (since deceased) through LRs. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , be taken within four weeks. Appeal stands disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.