JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. Consideration is sought in the present Letters Patent Appeal to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3841/2023, decided on 14.10.2024, whereby direction had been issued in favour of the petitioners that the State is bound to pay market value of the land to the petitioners for utilizing their land for the purpose of construction of the road. 2. The learned Single Judge had relied upon the earlier judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No. 3452/2023 titled Nathu Ram and another vs. State of HP & other decided on 19.07.2023, since the acquisition was for the same purpose, namely, construction of Bella-Siyasu road under HPPWD Shillai Division. It was also noticed that the appellant/State counsel as such had submitted that the petitioners were similarly situated persons and the case of the petitioners was covered by the said decision. 3. The stand taken by the State as such before the learned Single Judge was that there was voluntary offer of land for the construction of the road and there was no objection raised and usual plea of delay and laches was also taken that the road had been constructed under the Prdhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yogna and the road under the said scheme can be constructed only when the landowners provide land free of cost. 4. A perusal of the writ record would go on to show that it was claimed that the land of 2.3 bighas as such owned by the petitioners was utilized and construction had been done for the purpose of taking the road to the proposed Kisou Dam without acquisition. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in Civil Appeal NO(s) 3189 of 2022 (Annexure P-3) Kalyanai (Dead) through LRs and others vs. The Sulthan Bathery Municipality and others. 5. As per the representation given by the petitioners, the construction of the road was started on 20.05.2018 and completed on 20.01.2022 with a total amount of Rs.4,85,21,820/- which had been utilized as per the information given by the Executive Engineer, and therefore, the issue of delay also stands looked after. The stand taken by the State has already been noticed above. The stand taken by the State has already been noticed above. Nothing has been brought on record that there was any written consent as such of the land owners for the voluntary surrender which was sought to be done during the life time of the father of the petitioners and the allegations were that the construction work had been completed in the year 2010. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench noticed the similar facts regarding construction of the road only while granting the benefit and the relevant portion has already been reproduced by the learned Single Judge. 7. In 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. 8. In Kalyani (Dead) Through LRs & Others [supra], 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. 9. Learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court had come to a similar conclusion that there is no material on record to show that there is any voluntary surrender of land and that the road was owned and possessed by the Panchayat and thereafter handed over to PWD. The directions were given to disburse the amount by the Panchayat after determination by the Collector for market value of the property. The matter had been taken to the Division Bench, wherein, the observations had come that there could be a voluntary surrender and there need not be any formal surrender. 10. The Apex Court came to the conclusion that the Division Bench proceeded on wrong premises on shifting the burden on landowners and that burden would be on Panchayat/Municipality and there could be no voluntary surrender similar to the petitioners herein and as such fall back was made to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 10. The Apex Court came to the conclusion that the Division Bench proceeded on wrong premises on shifting the burden on landowners and that burden would be on Panchayat/Municipality and there could be no voluntary surrender similar to the petitioners herein and as such fall back was made to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the Constitutional Bench in K.T. Plantation Private Limited and another Versus State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 was relied upon that for the purpose of construction and widening of road, there is no justification for not paying any compensation while noticing that necessary representations had been made at the earliest. The said principle of law would thus be applicable regarding the right to seek compensation and the absence of any written material on record that surrender was voluntary. Therefore, for the reasons given therein, we are of the considered opinion that there is no plausible reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, once similarly situated persons have also got the same relief. 11. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.