Allowed

State of Hp and Ors. v. Sukhdarshan Sigh and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Dec 2023LPA/88/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal from a writ petition where the State directed to acquire land utilized for road construction. The Court held that delay and laches by landowners do not bar the State's power to acquire such land, upholding lower court directions.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the State to initiate land acquisition steps within one month and complete within six months, or hand over possession to landowners.

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Sukhdarshan Sigh and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No.88 of 2021 Decided on : December 8, 2023

¶3

State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Appellants Versus Sukhdarshan Singh & others …Respondents Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

For the Appellant : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, General with Mr. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : Ms Shashi Kiran, Advocate.

¶7

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

¶8

This appeal has been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh against judgment dated 28.9.2020, passed in CWP No.3926 of 2009, titled as Sukhdarshan Singh v. State of Himahcal Pradesh & others , whereby appellants-State has been directed to initiate steps for the purpose of acquisition of land of the landowners-petitioners (respondents herein), comprised in Khasra Nos.1790/1780, measuring 0-4 biswas, Khasra No.1114, measuring 1-16 bighas, Khasra Nos.1795/1145, measuring 0-7 biswas, Khasra No.1146, measuring 0-19 biswas, Khasra No.1149, 1150, measuring 1-7 bighas, situtated at Mauza Narang, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, without acquiring the land.

¶9

LPA No.88 of 2021

¶10

…2…

¶11

The only ground taken by the appellants-State is that there was delay and laches on the part of the landowners and no cogent reason was stated in the petition for remaining silent for a long period of time as the possession of the land was taken by the State in the year 1981-82, when construction of road was carried out that too with verbal consent of the petitioners, their predecessor-in-interest and all other villagers, and the road was constructed only on voluntary surrender of possession of their land by the landowners.

¶12

To substantiate the plea, State has placed reliance upon the decisions of this High Court in CWP No.1966 of 2010, titled as Shankar Dass alias Shankru v. State of H.P.; RSA No.6 of 2014, titled as State of H.P. and others v. Baldev and others; CWP No.649 of 2015, titled as Ram Murti v. State of H.P.; CWP No.661 of 2015, titled as Nika Ram v. State of H.P. & others; CWP No.201 of 2016, titled as Tulsi Ram v. State of H.P., and that of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digamber, (1995) 4 SCC 883.

¶13

Issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508; and Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of H.P., (2022) 7 SCC 508, where similar plea taken by the State stands rejected.

¶14

In similar circumstances, Division Bench of this Court has also rejected the similar plea of the State vide judgments dated

¶15

LPA No.88 of 2021

¶16

…3…

¶17

20.10.2023, passed in LPA No.195 of 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Parkash and others, and dated 1.11.2023, passed in LPA No.55 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. v. Bihari Lal and another.

¶18

In view of the settled law, we do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld, with directions to the appellantsState to initiate steps to acquire the land of the petitionerslandowners, which has been utilized for construction of road, within one month from today and to complete the process within six months thereafter. Needless to say, as held by learned Single Judge, alternatively, the State is directed to hand over possession of the land back to the landowners.

¶19

The appeal stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶20

( Sandeep Sharma ) December 8, 2023 (sd) Judge

State of Hp and Ors. v. Sukhdarshan Sigh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Ors. v. Sukhdarshan Sigh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Devi Vs State of Hp

Manav Singh Pathania Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Rama Nand Sharma Vs State of Hp

Brij Lal Sharma Vs State of Hp

Bali Ram Vs State of Hp

Arun Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others