State of Hp and Anr. Vs Goverdhan and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Goverdhan and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 176 days in filing the appeal condoned and CMP(M) No.2109 of 2024 disposed of; LPA No.3135 of 2025 disposed of with liberty to the State/appellants to take remedial steps before the learned Single Judge, including filing an appropriate application for placing the complete copy of Annexure R-1 with notice to the other side; pending application(s), if any, disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Sustainability of the learned Single Judge's directions to initiate acquisition proceedings qua the excess 5 biswas of land utilised for the road, amid the dispute whether 14 biswas or all 19 biswas was acquired. +1 more

Court's answer

Since there was no material before the learned Single Judge in the form of the correct version of Annexure R-1, the counsel for the State was not in a position to argue the present appeal.

Ratio / Principle

Delay of 176 days in filing the appeal is condoned, the application being duly supported by an affidavit; the application (CMP(M) No.2109 of 2024) stands disposed of.

Key takeaways

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, the only appropriate remedy to the State would be to go back to the learned Single Judge.ratio¶27
The present appeal is disposed of with liberty to the State to take remedial steps before the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Division Bench (G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice, with Ranjan Sharma, Judge), oral judgment dated 03.03.2025 in LPA No.3135 of 2025 along with CMP(M) No.2109 of 2024 (neutral citation 2025:HHC:4378): (1) delay of 176 days in filing the State's appeal condoned and the application disposed of; (2) the appeal challenged the learned Single Judge's directions to initiate acquisition proceedings qua the excess 5 biswas of land utilised for the road — the land owner's case being that 14 biswas was acquired but 19 biswas utilised, while the State's written-statement case was that all 19 biswas was acquired under award No.93 of 1956 dated 1st May, 1956 with mutation Annexure R-1; (3) as the correct version of Annexure R-1 (including Column No.15, which was not on the writ record) was not before the learned Single Judge, counsel for the State could not argue the appeal; (4) the appeal was disposed of with liberty to the State to take remedial steps before the learned Single Judge, including placing the complete copy of Annexure R-1 with the other side put to notice; pending application(s) disposed of accordingly.

2025:HHC:4378

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CMP(M) No. 2109 of 2024 and LPA No.3135 of 2025

Decided on: 03.03.2025

State of H.P & anr. ......applicants/appellants

Versus

Goverdhan and anr.

...non-applicants/respondents

Coram

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

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the applicants/appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

CMP(M) No.2109 of 2024

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 176 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

LPA No.3135 of 2025

Inter alia contends that the case of the petitioners was that an award was passed for the acquisition of the land on 01.05.1956 in favour of the land owner. However, later it transpired that in the year

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

2025:HHC:4378

2010, the State was in occupation of 5 biswas more than the acquired land.

The challenge is to the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby directions were issued to initiate acquisition proceedings qua the excess 5 biswas of land, which appears to have been utilised for the construction of the road in question.

The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that it was the case of the land owner that the acquisition was of 14 biswas, but utilisation was of 19 biswas and therefore in such circumstances necessary directions were issued.

The learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the written-statement filed by respondent No.1 in the Writ petition. He submits that all of 19 biswas was acquired and the necessary award bearing No.93 of 1956 was passed on 1^st May, 1956 and mutation was also Annexure R-1. He has referred to certain parts of Column No.15 of Annexure R-1 from his record, which apparently was not part of the record of the learned Single Judge, as perusal of Annexure R-1 of the writ record shows that there was no column No.15.

It is in such circumstances the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that after 60 years the petition has been filed and therefore the said fact would have to be kept in mind if the acquisition was of 19 biswas. However, considering that apparently there was no

2025:HHC:4378

material before the learned Single Judge in the form of correct version of Annexure R-1, the counsel for the State is not in a position to argue the present Appeal. He therefore submits that liberty be given to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for placing the complete copy of Annexure R-1, so that the other side can also be put to notice.

Resultantly, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, we feel that the only appropriate remedy to the State would be to go back to learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, we dispose of the present appeal with liberty to take remedial steps before the learned Single Judge in accordance

with law.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice

March 03, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge

(ankit)