Dismissed¶19

State of Hp and Others v. Sheesh Ram

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Mar 2025CMP.M/1968/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition; road 'Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo, Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan'; parity for similarly situated landowners; beneficiaries of same judgment cannot be categorised differently; State appeals against Single Judge direction to initiate acquisition; coordinate Bench affirmation (LPA 438 of 2024 Shiv Ram dismissed 06.12.2024; LPA 485 of 2024 Siri Ram dismissed 21.12.2024; COPC 620 of 2024 compliance undertaking 25.02.2025); delay condonation; LPA dismissed; State of HP vs Ram Prakash / Sheesh Ram / Ranveer; CWP No. 3139 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

None to the applicant/appellant State: the appeals are dismissed after condoning the delay in their filing, and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶19

State of Hp and Others Vs Sheesh Ram — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the applicant/appellant State: the appeals are dismissed after condoning the delay in their filing, and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the State's appeals against the common Single Judge judgment directing initiation of land acquisition proceedings can be decided differently when coordinate Benches have already affirmed that judgment, and whether similarly situated persons aggrieved by the same cause of action and beneficiaries of the same judgment can be placed in different categories.

¶18

Court's answer

Similarly situated persons aggrieved by the same cause of action (construction of the same road) and beneficiaries of the same judgment cannot be put up in different categories.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Once the coordinate Bench has already affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge which is the subject matter of challenge, there is no plausible reason to take a different view; consequently the present appeals are dismissed, with delay in filing by the State condoned.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Ranjan Sharma, J) of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the State's appeals (CMP(M) Nos. 2004, 1968 and 2124 of 2024 with LPA Nos. 103, 104 and 102 of 2025, decided 19.03.2025) challenging a common judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3139 of 2023, Ram Prakash and others vs. State of H.P and others (decided 16.03.2024), which directed initiation of acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-à-vis land utilized for construction of the road 'Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo, Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan'. Held: (i) similarly situated persons aggrieved by the same cause of action for construction of the same road and beneficiaries of the same judgment cannot be put in different categories; (ii) once the coordinate Bench has already affirmed the Single Judge's order under challenge — as in LPA No. 438 of 2024 (Shiv Ram), dismissed 06.12.2024, and LPA No. 485 of 2024 (Siri Ram), dismissed 21.12.2024 — no different view is permissible; delay in filing condoned and appeals dismissed, pending applications disposed of.

¶1

( 2025:HHC:6730 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CMP(M) Nos.2004 of 2024 & LPA No.103 of 2025 CMP(M) No. 1968 of 2024 & LPA No.104 of 2025 CMP(M) No. 2124 of 2024 & LPA No.102 of 2025 Decided on: 19^th March, 2025 ____________________________________________________ CMP(M) No. 2004 of 2024 & LPA No. 103 of 2025 State of HP and others ....Applicant/Appellant Versus Ram Prakash ….Respondent CMP(M) No.1968 of 2024 & LPA No. 104 of 2025 State of HP and others ....Applicant/Appellant Versus Sheesh Ram ….Respondent CMP(M) No.2124 of 2024 & LPA No. 102 of 2025 State of HP and others ....Applicant/Appellant Versus Ranveer and others ….Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

¶8

For the Applicant/Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, in all the Appeals. For the respondents: Ms. Anchal Harish, Proxy counsel, for the respondents in CMP(M) Nos. 1968 and 2124 of 2024.

¶9

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶10

The present set of Appeals arise out of common judgment passed in lead case bearing No. CWP No. 3139 of 2023

¶11

titled Ram Prakash and others vs. State of H.P and others , alongwith connected matters, decided on 16.03.2024.

¶12

Sum and substance of the judgment is that the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-à-vis the land of the petitioners keeping in view the fact that the land has been utilized for the construction of road namely “Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo, Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan” .

¶13

The State had raised challenge to said judgment by firstly filing CMP(M) No.1921 of 2024 and LPA No.438 of 2024 titled as State of H.P & Ors. vs. Shiv Ram and the said LPA was dismissed on 06.12.2024.

¶14

Similarly another CMP(M) No.2006 of 2024 and LPA

¶15

No.485 of 2024 titled State of H.P and Ors. vs. Siri Ram and Ors. ,

¶16

¶17

against the same judgment was also dismissed on 21.12.2024 by the co-ordinate Bench.

¶18

In Siri Ram case bearing LPA No. 485 of 2024, the petitioner has also filed against COPC 620 of 2024 titled as Siri Ram and Ors. vs. Onkar Chand Sharma and Ors. , which was also disposed of on 25.02.2025, whereby the State has undertaken to comply with the said judgment keeping in view the dismissal of the LPA within three months. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason how similarly situated persons aggrieved by the same cause of action for the construction of same road and beneficiary of the same judgment can be put up in different categories.

¶19

Once the coordinate Bench has already affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, which is subject matter of challenge, we do not find any plausible reason as such, to take a different view and therefore, we dismiss the appeals after condoning the delay in the filing the present appeals by the State.

¶20

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶21

( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice

¶22

19^th March, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge

State of Hp and Others v. Sheesh Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Others v. Sheesh Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbhajan Singh Nagpal Vs State Bank of India and Others

Cskhpkv Vs Kulwant Singh

Harbhajan Singh Nagpal Vs SBI and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Ram Prakash

State of Hp and Others Vs Ranveer and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Keshav Ram and Others