Fence-Sitters and Selective Relief: Land Acquisition Notifications Valid Qua Non-Petitioners

Picture of Stpl law

Stpl law

This civil writ petition was filed by 11 landowners seeking parity with the earlier judgments of the High Court in Smt. Kamlesh and Vikram Singh cases, wherein land acquisition notifications under Sections 11 and 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, were declared invalid because the Section 19 declaration was issued beyond 12 months from the preliminary notification. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the writ petition, holding that the relief granted in the previous litigation was expressly restricted in personam to the specific writ petitioners and did not quash the acquisition notification as a whole. The Court ruled that landowners who remained fence-sitters and failed to challenge the notifications at the relevant time cannot claim the benefit of those earlier judgments.

  • Selective Nature of Previous Relief: In prior litigation ( Kamlesh and Vikram Singh cases), the Division Bench did not strike down the land acquisition notifications as a whole (in rem), but specifically restricted the relief in personam to the land and houses of the specific writ petitioners therein.
  • Exclusion of Fence-Sitters: Landowners who remained fence-sitters, failed to challenge the acquisition notifications, or did not raise timely objections regarding the validity of the proceedings cannot subsequently claim the benefit of a judgment obtained by more diligent petitioners.
  • Principle of Selective Quashing: Quashing of land acquisition proceedings at the instance of one or two landowners does not automatically nullify the entire acquisition process or enure to the benefit of non-parties.
  • Absence of Timely Challenges: Since the petitioners did not challenge the validity of the preliminary or declaration notifications at the appropriate statutory stage, their attempt to latch onto subsequent favorable rulings for other parties is legally unsustainable.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 559

Bal Krishan Sharma and Others v. State of H.P. and Others (D.O.J. 20.07.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Departure from Pleadings and Statutory Retrospectivity: Upholding Collector’s Demolition Orders on National Highways

August 9, 2026 No Comments

This regular second appeal filed by the State challenged a judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Solan, which had set aside the trial court’s dismissal of a civil suit and declared an administrative demolition order illegal. The plaintiff had originally filed a suit challenging a collector’s order under the Himachal Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act ordering the demolition of a building structure violating road safety margins. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal on a ground never pleaded by the plaintiff—namely, that because the road passed through a municipal area, it ceased to be a National Highway. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the State’s appeal, setting aside the appellate judgment and restoring the trial court’s decision, holding that courts cannot make out a new case outside the pleadings and that statutory amendments under the National Highways Act, 1956 have omitted municipal exclusions.

  • Binding Nature of Pleadings: A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties, and an appellate court exceeds its jurisdiction when it permits a party to set up an entirely new case or grants relief on unpleaded grounds.
  • Effect of Statutory Amendment on National Highways: Following the amendment of Section 2(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 by Act No. 16 of 1997 (w.e.f. 24.01.1997) omitting the exception clause for municipal areas, a national highway passing through a municipal limit does not cease to be a national highway or a controlled area under roadside land control laws.
  • Limitation for Challenging Administrative Orders: A civil suit filed to challenge an administrative order passed by a collector or statutory authority is governed by Article 100, requiring filing within one year from the date of the order.
  • Inadmissibility of Unpleaded Subsequent Events: Subsequent administrative decisions or judgments rendered in matters involving third parties cannot be introduced via miscellaneous applications without a formal amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 573

State of H.P. & Another v. Inder Raj & Others (D.O.J. 30.07.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Next Story

Service Law: State Instrumentality and Regularization Rights: Overcoming the Society Mode Barrier

August 9, 2026 No Comments

This civil writ petition challenged an order passed by the authorities rejecting the petitioner’s claim for regularization on the ground that he was an employee of a society (State Council for Education, Research and Training – SCERT) governed by separate norms rather than a direct government department. The petitioner had served continuously as a Hostel Caretaker/Storekeeper on a daily-wage basis since November 2002. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the petition and quashed the rejection order, holding that an entity owned, controlled, and financed by the State Government which discharges essential public functions is an extended arm of the State, and it cannot hide behind the corporate veil of a “society” to subject its long-term workers to exploitative employment practices in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

  • Status of Government-Controlled Societies: An entity registered as a society that is owned, controlled, and financed by the State Government and discharges public functions constitutes an instrumentality or an extended arm of the State.
  • Impermissibility of Exploitative Practices: A state-backed entity or extended arm cannot deny regularization to daily-wage workers who have rendered long-term, uninterrupted service for decades on perennial posts by hiding behind a separate “society mode” nomenclature.
  • Constitutional Mandate of Equality: Denying regular employment benefits to workers performing continuous public functions while extracting decades of labor violates the equality and fairness principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
  • Consequential Relief and Regularization: The Court set aside the rejection order and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of filing his original application, along with all consequential monetary and seniority benefits.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 572

Vidhan Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 30.07.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Service Law” Dismissal of Police Constables Convicted under the NDPS Act Without Inquiry

August 9, 2026 No Comments

This common judgment disposes of two writ petitions filed by police constables challenging their dismissal from service by the Director General of Police (DGP) under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India and Section 63 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007, following their convictions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The petitioners contended that the DGP lacked competency as a disciplinary authority, that regular departmental inquiries were wrongly dispensed with, and that the suspension of their sentences in pending appeals precluded immediate dismissal. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the DGP, being an officer of a rank superior to the appointing/disciplinary authority under the Punjab Police Rules, is fully competent to pass dismissal orders, and that the pendency of a criminal appeal or suspension of a sentence does not stay a conviction or bar immediate disciplinary action against members of a disciplined force convicted of grave offences.

  • Competency of the Director General of Police: Under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Himachal Pradesh), the DGP—being an officer of a higher rank than the Superintendent of Police or Deputy Inspector-General—is legally empowered to inflict the punishment of dismissal on police constables.
  • Dispensation of Inquiry upon Criminal Conviction: Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India explicitly permits dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry when an employee is dismissed on the ground of conduct that led to their conviction on a criminal charge.
  • Gravity of Offenses in Disciplined Forces: Members of a disciplined police force convicted under the NDPS Act have brought disrepute to the force, and the imposition of dismissal is neither grossly excessive nor out of proportion to the misconduct.
  • Irrelevance of Sentence Suspension in Appeals: The suspension of a sentence by an appellate court does not amount to a stay of the conviction itself; until a conviction is formally set aside by a higher court, retaining a convicted employee—especially for corruption or heinous drug-related offenses—in public service is unwarranted.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 571

Gaurav Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Service Law: Rectification of Provisional Selection Errors

August 9, 2026 No Comments

This civil writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging his exclusion from the final select list for the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) after his name had initially appeared in a provisional selection list. The respondent-University had advertised two UDC posts strictly under the unreserved category, but the petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was mistakenly reflected as selected by applying the lower qualifying marks intended for reserved categories. Upon discovering this error, the University put the provisional list in abeyance, reassessed candidate eligibility, and excluded the petitioner because he failed to meet the mandatory higher qualifying threshold required for unreserved posts. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the writ petition, holding that an employer is fully competent to rectify a provisional evaluation mistake, and candidates competing for unreserved posts must satisfy the unreserved category benchmarks irrespective of their social category.

  • Requirement for Unreserved Posts: Where posts of a specific cadre are advertised strictly under the unreserved category, all participating candidates, irrespective of their social category (such as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe), must compete against the benchmark and minimum qualifying marks prescribed for unreserved candidates.
  • Rectification of Provisional Evaluation Errors: If a candidate from a reserved category is mistakenly reflected as selected in an initial provisional list by applying lower qualifying marks intended for reserved vacancies, the employer is fully competent to put such list in abeyance and rectify the mistake.
  • Inapplicability of Reserved Relaxation on Unreserved Open Seats: A reserved category candidate cannot claim the relaxed qualifying standards meant for reserved seats when competing against open/unreserved vacancies.
  • Exclusion Upon Failing Threshold: Where an unreserved position requires a minimum of 8 marks in General Knowledge and a candidate secures only 6 marks, they fail to meet the mandatory threshold and have no legal right to claim appointment.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 570

Sumit Kumar v. Central University of H.P. (D.O.J. 29.07.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share

Recent Articles