Back
2013 Supreme(HP) 689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Dev Darshan Sud, Dharam Chand Chaudhary, JJ.
Dillu Ram and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P and others - Respondents
CWP No. 4208 of 2010
Decided On: 11th September, 2013
For the petitioner:Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikram, Thakur, Dy. A.G.
The appropriate remedy for claiming compensation for land utilized by the State for road construction is to institute a civil suit to establish the claim as pleaded.
Headnote:
Compensation - Land Utilization - The court held that in cases where the State has not taken steps under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of roads and the land had been willingly surrendered either orally or otherwise with implied or express consent by the owners, the owners can invoke the jurisdiction refuting such consent only within the time within which such a relief can be claimed in a Civil Suit. The appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to institute a civil suit to establish the claim as pleaded.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed compensation for the land utilized by the respondents for the construction of a road. The respondents argued that the petitioners verbally consented or did not object to the construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that serious disputed questions of law and fact arise for determination of the starting point of limitation, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to institute a civil suit in accordance with law.
Issues: The disputed questions of law and fact regarding the starting point of limitation for claiming compensation for the land utilized by the State for road construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to institute a civil suit to establish the claim as pleaded.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to institute a civil suit in accordance with law and the ratio in the referenced case. The court did not pronounce on the merits of the case of either party.
Dev Darshan Sud, Judge (Oral)
In this writ petition, the petitioners claim compensation for the land which has been utilized by the respondents-State without payment of compensation in accordance with law. The case was listed to be taken up after decision in Shankar Dass vs. State of H.P. and others connected matters, 2013(2) Him.L.R. (FB) 698 which was a reference made to the Full Bench to consider the parameters within which compensation for land utilized by the State could be granted in writ proceedings. By majority, the Division Bench of this Court holds:-
“In cases where the State has not taken steps under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of roads on the ground that the required land had been willingly surrendered either orally or otherwise or with implied or express consent by the owners at the relevant time, they can invoke the jurisdiction refuting such express or implied consent or the stand of the State on voluntary surrender, only within the time within which such a relief can be claimed in a Civil Suit. Once such a question is thus raised in a Writ Petition the same can be considered in the Writ Petition itself.” (at p.725)
2. From the pleadings, we find that according to the case set out by the petitioners, the land belonging to them was utilized by the respondents for the construction of Deori-Khaneti road in the year 1990. The stand of the respondent-State, on the other hand, is that before starting the construction work of Deori-Khaneti road the petitioners raised no objection but rather verbally consented/did not object to the construction so made.
3. From the pleadings, we find that serious disputed questions of law and fact arise for determination of the starting point of limitation, which, it is not possible to adjudicate in writ proceedings. The appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to institute a civil suit in accordance with Shankar Dass’s case supra, to establish the claim as pleaded. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to institute a civil suit in accordance with law and the ratio in Shankar Dass’s case supra.
4. We do not pronounce on the merits of the case of either party. We also direct that if such suit is filed, the period spent by the petitioners in pursuing the writ remedy before this Court shall obviously be excluded for calculation of period of limitation, if disputed. Petition stands disposed of.
5. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.
