Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Bhoop Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others – Respondents
CWP No. 2386 of 2009
Decided On : 24-06-2016
Land Acquisition - Utilization of Land for Road Construction - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - PMGSY - [Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, Section 6, Section 17, Section 23] - The court held that the respondent-State cannot absolve itself of its liability to compensate the petitioner for the land which has been utilized by it for the construction of road without the permission of the petitioner. The court referred to the right to property as a human right and directed the respondent-State to initiate steps to acquire the land of the petitioner or re-align the road by 'bye passing' the property of the petitioner within a specified period. If the respondent decides to vacate the land, it was directed to assess the damage caused to the land and pay compensation to the petitioner with interest. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the valuation, he has the liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Court of law for redressal of his grievance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's agricultural land was utilized by the State for the construction of a road under the PMGSY without his consent, leading to loss and adverse effects on his livelihood. The petitioner sought compensation for the unauthorized use of his land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's land could not have been utilized for road construction without compensating him in accordance with the law, as there was no written consent or donation of land by the petitioner. The court also referred to the right to property as a human right and directed the respondent-State to take specific actions to address the petitioner's grievances.
Issues: Unauthorized utilization of petitioner's land for road construction, absence of written consent or donation of land, liability of the respondent-State to compensate the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that no one can be deprived of their property except by the procedure laid down by law, which includes the payment of due and admissible compensation to the affected party. The court also highlighted the right to property as a human right and directed the respondent-State to initiate steps to acquire the petitioner's land or re-align the road within a specified period.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent-State to initiate steps to acquire the petitioner's land or re-align the road within three months. If the respondent decides to vacate the land, it was directed to assess the damage caused to the land and pay compensation to the petitioner with interest. The petitioner was given the liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Court of law if unsatisfied with the valuation of compensation/damages.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-
“(i) Writ of Mandamus, or any other writ, order, direction be issued to the respondents to follow the procedure of law by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring the land of the petitioner land at Mohal Kot-114, khevat 27 min Khatauni No. 61 Village Panetu, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi (HP), unauthorizedly used so that the petitioner can be compensated for the loss of his agriculture land in dispute in accordance with law.
(ii) That the appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law in a time bound manner so that further harassment, humiliation of the petitioner could be avoided.”
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is resident of village Bhandli, PO Jassal, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi and he is owner of agricultural land at Mohal Kot-114, Khevat 27 Min, Khatuani No. 61 Village Panetu, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi. According to the petitioner, a link road has been constructed by respondent-State between Mauta-Bagshar under the “Prime Minister Gram Sarak Yojna” (PMGSY) in the year 2005-2006 in which agricultural land of the petitioner has been utilized by the State. As per him, the construction of the road on the agricultural land of petitioner has been done by the respondent-State without any permission or consent of the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated that as a result of said forceful use of his agricultural land, he has suffered loss and his livelihood has also been adversely affected. He has also stated that he has approached the concerned officers of the department on various occasions for being compensated but respondent-State has not compensated him till date in accordance with law in lieu of utilization of his land. In this regard, he also made representation to the respondent-State on 18.2.2009. However, as no steps were taken by the respondent-State to compensate him in accordance with law in lieu of utilization of his said land, therefore, he was forced to file the present petition praying for the reliefs aforementioned.
3. In its reply filed to the petition, the factum of utilization of land of petitioner for the purposes of construction of road has not been denied by the State. However, according to respondent-State, the land in question has been utilized by the department with implied consent of the land owner/petitioner and according to the State, the construction of the road over the land of the petitioner was never objected by him either at the time of the construction of the road or at the time of survey of the road. The relevant para of the reply filed by the respondent-State is reproduced herein below:-
“3. It is submitted that the road from Mahota to Bagshar upto village Telehan has already been constructed upto Km 14/00 prior to 2/2009. As the suit land falls on the road Km 8/530 to 8/620 which has already been constructed by the respondent department with the implied/oral consent of the land owner/petitioner well before 17.1.2005 as they have never objected at the time of construction of road as well at the time of survey. Moreover, the petitioner and his representatives alongwith other land owners remained present at the site of work at the time of carrying out of survey work and formation cutting of road through their land, and they donated their land with their sweet will. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is an after thought to receive an unwanted amount of compensation alongwith the benefit of road. As the road is constructed under the scheme PMGSY in which there is no provision for acquisition of land after payment of compensation. In such type of scheme the beneficiaries of the area have to arrange the land free from all encumbrances and free of cost. However, the construction of this road is on demand of the public for which the land has to be donated by the community. Copy of PMGSY guidelines for construction
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
