The judgment establishes the principle that no one can be deprived of their property except by the procedure laid down by law, including the payment of due and admissible compensation to the affected party.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) :

This petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

“(a) That Writ of Mandamus may be issued directing the Respondent to acquire the land of the petitioner and award the compensation and the compensation in respect to the land may be granted to the petitioner as discrimination has been done with the petitioner, as the land of the other similarly situated land owner has been acquired and the compensation in respect to their land have been granted to them.

(b) That the entire record pertaining to the case may be called for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

(c) Any such other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the given set of circumstances may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is permanent resident of village Baandar, Pargana Stota, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla and is owner in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 23/22, Khatauni No. 61, Khasra No. 634, measuring 00-13-92, Khasra No. 636 measuring 00-33-84 and Khasra No. 635, measuring 00-30-36 hectors, situated at Mohal Baandar, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. According to him, in the course of construction of Antrawli-Baandur-Paban road, which has been constructed by the respondent department, his land comprised in Khasra No. 635, measuring 00-30-36 hectors, situated at Mohal Baandar, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla has been utilized without his consent and without compensating him. Further as per him, the road in issue has been constructed under the Pardhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMGSY’ for short) and the Khasra number of the petitioner which has been utilized for the construction of the road was not included in the initial survey. He has further mentioned that he had filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chopal praying for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants to execute the construction work of the road in respect of Khasra Nos. 634 and 636 mentioned above. But the State constructed the road from Khasra No. 635 which was not subject matter of Civil Suit. His further case is that on 29.05.2008, he applied for demarcation of land and the said demarcation was conducted on 02.06.2008, report of which is placed on record as Annexure P-7, from which it is evident that the respondents have constructed the road in issue over Khasra No. 635. As per the petitioner, he approached the authorities to acquire the said land as per law and compensate him for utilizing his land, but as the respondents failed to do so, therefore, he filed this petition praying for the reliefs already mentioned above.

3. In the reply, the factum of land comprised in Khasra No. 635 having been utilized by the Government for the construction of road in issue has not been denied. However, the case of the respondents is that the road in question has been constructed under PMGSY entirely through Government land and gifted land and further as per the State, Khasra No. 635 has been used by the respondent department for construction of land after obtaining verbal consent of the land owners including the petitioner. Further, the case of the State is that there is no provision of acquisition of private land for the road which is constructed under the PMGSY. According to the State, roads under this scheme are constructed with the funds deposited for the work by the Government of India.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that under the PMGSY, road is constructed through the land of private land owners only if they give an undertaking by way of an affidavit that they shall not claim any compensation of the land utilized for construction of road or they donate the said land by way of gift deed in favour of the department. Therefore, according to him, in the present case also there was no occasion for the Government to pay any compensation to the petitioner as he had consented to his land being utilized fo