The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the PMGSY, the State Government is obligated to acquire land and pay compensation to landowners from its own resources for road construction. The judgment emphasized that a person is entitled to compensation unless it is proved that the land was voluntarily donated or given willingly with free will and consent for road construction.

JUDGMENT :

LPA No.33 of 2021

This matter has been referred to the Larger Bench by order dated 5th April, 2021, in view of the conflict of opinion between judgment dated 8th August, 2017, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.79 of 2017, titled as State of H.P. & others Versus Bhoop Ram and another set of two judgments passed in LPA No.93 of 2017, titled as State of H.P. & ors. Versus Dalip Singh, decided on 28.11.2019 and LPA No.12 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. & others Versus Laiq Ram Dogra, decided on 23.03.2021. The learned Division Bench has formulated the following question for being answered by the Larger Bench:-

“Whether a persons whose lands has been utilized for construction of road under ‘PMGSY’ is entitled to compensation?”

2. We have heard Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner.

3. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General has argued that the land of the petitioner was utilized for construction of jeapable road in the year 2000-2001 at Muhal Basmol, Development Block Theog. The suit land falls at RD 3/270 to 3/370 and 3/465 to 3/550. The cutting work through said portion was carried out with implied oral consent of all land owners including the respondent-writ petitioner and was completed well before 17.01.2005. The respondent-writ petitioner never objected to survey as well as construction of road at that time. He never claimed payment of compensation till filing of the writ petition in the present case in the year, 2009. As per mandate of the Limitation Act, claim for payment of compensation has to be made within three years, but in the present case, the writ petition has been filed four years after utilization of the land. Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India Versus N. Murugesan, decided on 7th October, 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos.2491-2492 of 2021, the learned Advocate General argued that the learned Single Bench has erred in law in not dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. The learned Advocate General, in support of arguments, has also relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Versus Dugal Kumar, decided on 28th July, 2008, reported in 2008 (14) SCC 295.

4. The learned Advocate General has cited the Full Bench decision of this Court in case Shankar Dass Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, reported in 2013 (2) Him LR 698 and argued that substance of question referred to the Full Bench in that case was whether a person, who had willingly surrendered his land to State by giving consent, can seek a direction to the State from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after a long time, to initiate the land acquisition proceedings in respect of such land. The reference was answered by the Full Bench in the terms that “in such cases, the land owner has to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court refuting such express or implied consent or the stand of the State on voluntary surrender within such reasonable time, in which such relief can be claimed in a Civil Suit.”

5. The learned Advocate General relied upon the judgment of this Court in Laiq Ram (supra) and argued that there was no provision for land acquisition under PMGSY. As regards the judgment of Vidya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others reported in 2020 (2) SCC 569, the learned Advocate General argued that judgment is distinguishable on facts as the State had in that case issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued in 2008 with respect to the land of Anakh Singh, a neighbouring land owner, whose land was taken over for the same purpose. Appellant Vidya Devi continuously represented her case before different Authorities for payment of compensation, but remained unsuccessful. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) was also passed in different facts situation and is, therefo