Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 1291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Shri Jai Parkash - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
CWP No. 2730 of 2010
Decided On : 30-06-2017
Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General, for the Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State, in exercising its power of eminent domain, can interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same only for a public purpose and paying reasonable compensation therefor, as mandated by Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Construction of Road - Land Acquisition Act - Section 4, 6, 7 - The court discussed the omission of respondents to acquire the land of Petitioners in accordance with the law for the construction of a road. The court highlighted the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, including Sections 4, 6, and 7, and their application in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners filed a Petition against the omission of respondents to acquire their land for the construction of a road and sought suitable compensation. The Petitioners claimed that the road was constructed without acquiring the land in accordance with the law and without their consent. The respondents disputed the Petition, citing delay and laches on the part of the Petitioners and contending that the Petition was not maintainable due to highly disputed questions of law and fact.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State had initiated the process for the acquisition of the land in question but allowed it to lapse for reasons not related to the consent of the landowners. The court held that the pronouncements relied upon by the respondents were not applicable in the present case and directed the respondents to initiate the acquisition process for the Petitioners' land utilized for the road construction and ensure the payment of compensation as per their entitlement.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the omission of respondents to acquire the land for road construction, the disputed questions of law and fact, the delay and laches on the part of the Petitioners, and the entitlement of the Petitioners to compensation for the utilization of their land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State's inaction in acquiring the land for road construction, despite initiating the process, was not for the consent of the landowners and therefore, the pronouncements relied upon by the respondents were not applicable in the present case. The court also emphasized the duty of the State to establish and maintain the rule of law and protect the rights of citizens.
Final Decision: The Petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to initiate the acquisition process for the Petitioners' land utilized for road construction and ensure the payment of compensation as per their entitlement within a specified time frame.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) - This Petition has been filed against omission of respondents to acquire the land of Petitioners in accordance with law for utilization to construct Mari-Ka-Ghat Dingar-Kinnar-Mathana Road in Mauja Lana Chhabyul, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P., seeking directions to respondents to pay suitable compensation/damages on account of occupation and utilization of land including damage caused to trees etc. of Petitioners for the said road from the date of actual taking over the possession of acquired land in accordance with law under the relevant provisions of relevant Act.
2. Petitioners'' case is that aforesaid road was constructed without acquiring the land in accordance with law and also without consent of the owners. However, lands of other villagers of village Lana Chhubyal was utilized for construction of the same road was acquired by respondents vide award No. 14 of 2001, announced on 11th February, 2002 by Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD South Zone, Winter Field, Shimla-3 (Annexure P-3) and also that land of adjacent villages utilized for the same road was also acquired by respondents by passing award No. 4 of 2001 dated 5th October, 2001, wherein amount of compensation was enhanced by learned District Judge in Land References preferred by land owners therein and the said enhancement was upheld by this Court in RFA No. 187 of 2007, decided on 4.1.2008, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Amar Singh and other connected matters (copy of which is on record as Annexure P8).
3. Petitioners have also placed on record jamabandies (Annexure P-1) and spot tatima (map) (Annexure P-2) of village Lana Chhabyal on record, indicating the ownership of Petitioners and construction of road thereupon including Khasra Nos. 270/1, 272/1, 273/1, 276/1 and 339/148/2, belonging to them.
4. Perusal of award No. 14 of 2001 (Annexure P-3), reveals that in notification dated 8.9.1998 issued under Section 4 of the Act, Khasra Nos. 270/1, 272/1, 273/1, 276/1 and 339/148/2 were also included in the list of Khasra numbers proposing to acquire the land comprised therein, utilized for construction of road. However, these Khasra numbers were excluded in notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act for the reasons best known to the respondents. Being aggrieved by omissions and commissions on the part of respondents, present Petition has been filed.
5. In reply to the Petition, utilization of lands of Petitioner for construction of road, nonpayment of compensation for the said utilization, acquisition of lands of co-villagers vide award No. 14 of 2001 (Annexure P-3), payment of compensation to the land owners for utilization of their lands for the same road referred in RFA No. 187 of 2007, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Amar Singh (annexure P-8), initiation of proceedings to acquire the land of Petitioners and dropping thereof, is not disputed. However, relying upon pronouncement of the Apex Court in case State of Maharashtra vs. Digamber, (1995) 4 SCC 683 and decision of this Court rendered on 2.3.2013 in CWP No. 1966 of 2010, titled Shankar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, dismissal of the Petition has been prayed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of Petitioners to approach the Court. It is further contended that Petition is not maintainable for the reasons that there are highly disputed questions of law and fact, which can be adjudicated only in civil suit by leading evidence and as the Petitioners have lost their remedy to file civil suit, because of expiry of limitation, the Petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Though it is stated in the reply that proceedings to acquire the land of Petitioners were allowed to lapse for reasons explained in detail in preliminary submissions, but preliminary submissions finds no mention of any such reason. It is also contended that Petitioners had never objected to construct the road through land in question, rather they voluntarily permitte
