Arun Kumar Goel, J. :- Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance record of the cases has also been examined.

2. Since identical questions of law and fact are involved in both these cases, as such these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.

3. It is admitted case of the respondents that with a view to lay a wide net work of link roads connecting villages with the highways, Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana was started in the year 2000 by the Government of India. What is its effect on these two cases, will be noted hereinafter.

4. In both cases petitioners claim that while constructing Kuthera-Chalokhar to Patlandar and Banal via Ree Road in the year 1993, their lands were taken over. Over such lands part of the aforesaid road has been constructed therefrom. On a question of fact, learned counsel for the parties were not at variance that no compensation for the lands of the petitioners was paid to them.

5. In this background, petitioners claim compensation for their lands out of which road has been constructed. They have also claimed interest on the amount payable to them. Their further case is that the action of the respondents is not only illegal and arbitrary but is also violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Reason being, that they have been deprived of their property without any authority of law.

6. In this background, they have prayed a issuance of for writ directing respondents to acquire land and pay compensation to them under law.

7. When put to notice, respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners and/or their being entitled for payment of any compensation. According to them, construction of road was started as far back as in the year 1993. This was on persistent requests of Gram Panchayat, Ree for completing the road in question at the earliest. With a view to support this stand, learned Advocate General placed reliance on Annexures R-1 to R-7. These are resolutions passed by Gram Panchayat, Ree from time to time between 28-2-1992 to 24-5-1995.

8. Annexure R-8 is a letter dated 24-1-2001, addressed to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Hamirpur, by the Gram Panchayat, Ree. Amongst other facts, it is mentioned in it that for construction of this road land was voluntarily given by the villagers at the time of its initial construction, therefore, prayer was made to the Executive Engineer for tarring it.

9. By referring to Annexure R-9, learned Advocate General clarified that funds are not provided for acquisition of land under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana, (PMGSY). To similar effect is Annexure R-10, a communication from the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed to different functionaries of the State for construction of roads under PMGSY.

10. While opposing the present writ petitions, learned Advocate General also laid great emphasis on an order dated 20-11-1996, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 966 of 1996. What is its effect, will be dealt with hereinafter. For ready reference this order is extracted hereinbelow : "The facts are in dispute. Hence the only proper remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the Civil Court and establish their rights. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed."

11. Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana was started in the year 2000, as noted earlier. Therefore, stand of the respondents that the road in question was constructed under PMGSY, is an argument raised simply to be rejected. Rather a reference to the Annexures clearly shows that road had already been constructed long ago. What is set out in paragraphs 3 and 5 in reply which are identical in terms of both these writ petitions, is extracted hereinbelow : "3. That the contents of para 3 are wrong hence denied. It is submitted that the road from Kuthera Chalokhar Patlander kachha one was constructed during the year 1993 and has been metalled and tarr