Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Fedru Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs on 28 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2025:HHC:8242 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
LPA No.126 of 2025
Date of decision: 28th March, 2025
State of H.P. …Appellant
Versus
Fedru Ram (deceased) through LRs …Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Appellant: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent: None. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
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
2( 2025:HHC:8242 )
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.
3
( 2025:HHC:8242 )
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 12th September, 2013, titled Shankar Dass v. State of Himachal
Pradesh.
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 27th February, 2024; LPA
4
( 2025:HHC:8242 )
No.24 of 2019, titled as State of HP vs. Baldev Singh and others,
decided on 27th March, 2024; LPA No.144 of 2024, titled State of HP
vs. Karam Singh, decided on 27th May, 2024; LPA No.151 of 2024,
titled State of HP vs. Prem Nath, decided on 12th 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 1st 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 24th 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
5
( 2025:HHC:8242 )
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.
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.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
6
( 2025:HHC:8242 )
28th March, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma,
Judge.
[ad_1]
Source link