The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to compensate landowners adequately under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the principles of economic justice and the constitutional right to property.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed for the following substantive relief:

"A writ of mandamus be passed against the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioner as detailed in Annexure P-4 to P-6 to the extent the same is utilized for the purpose of the link road known as Barsar to Jabbal Kherian Road and thereafter initiate the process of compensation under the land acquisition Act and grant the compensation at the market rate."

2. It Is Averred That The Predecessor-In-Interest Of The petitioners, namely, Sita Ram, was the owner of the land comprised in Khasra No. (old) 1824, new 1654, (old)1817, 1818/2, 1819 and 1820, new 1655 in Khewat No. 405, Khatauni No. 450 in Mohal Barsar, Mauza Pajgrhan, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, as per bandobast jadid for the year 2009-2010. It is further averred that the respondents have forcibly constructed and repaired the link road over a part of the suit land, of which no compensation has been awarded to them. In the earlier litigation, which reached up to this Court by way of RSA No. 531/2003, none of the parties had denied ownership and title of the petitioners and the suit as also the appeal filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had been primarily dismissed on the ground that the road was already existing over a part of the suit land since 1981-82 and was repaired around the years 1991 and 1997 respectively.

3. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply wherein it is averred that the respondents have nothing to do with the land of the petitioners as no part thereof has been used by them for any purpose whatsoever much less construction of the road.

4. The petitioners have filed rejoinder, wherein averments made in the petition were reiterated and the contrary averments made in the reply have been denied.

5. I Have Heard The Learned Counsel For The Parties And have also gone through the material placed on record carefully.

6. At The Outset, It Needs To Be Mentioned That Certain residents of Village Kheriyan as well as Gram Panchayat Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., had address a communication to the Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court, highlighting the grievances with regard to delay being caused by certain individuals in the construction of the link road. This communication was treated as a public interest litigation and was registered as CWPIL No. 221/2017.

7. Evidently, the individual named in the communication was none other than the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. Noticeably, in the affidavit filed by the Superintending Engineer, it has specifically come on record that in the year 2007, the authorities, i.e. the respondents decided to construct and widen the aforesaid link road and in this regard, the project was approved by NABARD for an amount of Rs. 147.63 lacs. The work of construction was started in three phases by the respondents. The construction of the road from K.M. 0/0 to 5/465 stood completed and only stretch at RD 5/300 to 4/600 could not be completed as the land thereafter belonged to the petitioners.

8. No Doubt, Learned Division Bench Of This Court While deciding CWPIL No. 221/2017 has held the earlier suit filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and the appeal carried out therein to be false, frivolous and vexatious and after taking into consideration this fact has further held that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners cannot be permitted to obstruct the widening of the road, however, at the same time, it has no where decided or held that he was not having any interest in the land through which the road had been constructed.

9. That Apart, It Would Be Noticed That The Suit Filed By the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was that of simpliciter injunction and, therefore, the adverse decision therein has no consequence upon the rights of the petitioners if otherwise established from other contemporaneous material available on record.

10. The