Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Sh. Sant Ram Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 8758 of 2022
Decided on : 19-07-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquire land - Land utilized for construction of road - Seeking compensation - Writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondents to acquire land of petitioner and pay compensation as has been done in other similar situated cases i.e. by award (Annexure P-3) immediately within a reasonable period as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court with all consequential benefits – There is no dispute that land of petitioner stands utilized for construction of road in question and some of persons, whose land were also used alongwith land of petitioners. (Para 12)
Finding of the Court :
There is no dispute that land of petitioner stands utilized for construction of road in question and some of persons, whose land were also used alongwith land of petitioners, stand granted compensation as has been detailed, prayer made by petitioner through petition deserves to be allowed - Petitioner is suffering continuous loss coupled with fact that he repeatedly requested authorities and thereafter, also approached competent court of law for initiation of acquisition proceedings, rightful claim of petitioner cannot be allowed to be defeated on ground of delay in filing petition, which has been otherwise held to be impermissible by Hon’ble Apex Court in judgments (supra) - Order is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under relevant statute vis-à-vis land of petitioner and thereafter, just and fair compensation qua land of petitioner used by respondents for construction of road may also be paid.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with office order dated 29.9.2022 whereby representations having been filed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 18.12.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2370 of 2018, for awarding adequate compensation qua the land used for construction of road namely “Udho-Niwas-Jakhar-Bartu Road” in Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, HP, as was done in the other similarly situate cases vide award dated 4.9.2014 (Annexure P-3), came to be dismissed, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:
(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioner and pay the compensation as has been done in the other similar situated cases i.e. by award dated 04.09.2014 (Annexure P-3) immediately within a reasonable period as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court with all consequential benefits.”
2. For having bird’s eye view, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that in the year 1995-96, respondents constructed “Udho-Niwas-Jakhar-Bartu Road” and for that purpose, acquisition proceedings were commenced for some of the land utilized for the construction of the aforesaid road and compensation was awarded vide order dated 24.11.1997, whereas part of the land was utilized without acquisition, as a result of which, owners of the suit land were not paid any compensation.
3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the instant petition and further canvassed by Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner is that land of the petitioner was also utilized by the respondents for construction of the road in question, but no acquisition proceedings were undertaken in respect of his land, as a result of which, he did not get any compensation either in terms of award dated 24.11.1997 or 4.9.2014.
4. Though petitioner repeatedly approached the appropriate authorities with a request to acquire his land already used for the above detailed road, but despite recommendation of his case by the appropriate authority, his grievance was not redressed and as such, he was compelled to approach this court by way of CWP No. 43 of 2018 (Annexure P-11), which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 11.1.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court, with direction to the respondent/competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to all the concerned within two months.
5. Though pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, petitioner filed representation (Annexure P-12) to Secretary (PWD) Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2, but in vain, because vide order 29.9.2022, Principal Secretary (PWD), rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that land of the petitioner was utilized for construction of the road in question with a clear understanding that petitioner shall not claim any compensation. Besides above, respondents also rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay & laches. It has been stated in the order impugned in the instant proceedings that petitioner remained silent for more than 20 years, meaning thereby, he had no objection qua the construction of the road and as such, at this stage, cannot be permitted to claim compensation for the land which he had himself made available for construction of the road. In the aforesaid backdrop, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for reliefs as reproduced herein above.
6. Prayer made in the instant petition has been opposed by the respondents on the ground that claim of the petitioner being highly belated, deserves outright rejection. It has be
Article 300A only limits powers of State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.
The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation without due process is violative of human rights.
Forcible dispossession without due process violates constitutional rights, necessitating initiation of acquisition proceedings and compensation regardless of alleged delay.
Landowners have a constitutional right to compensation for land utilized for public projects, and claims cannot be dismissed based on implied consent or delay in seeking redress.
Forcible dispossession of property without due process violates constitutional rights; delay and laches are not applicable in cases of continuing cause of action.
(1) State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches in such a situation – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice.(2) Acquisition of land – Nobody can be deprived of liberty or pro....
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
Welfare state cannot deprive property without due process and compensation for public use like road construction; adverse possession, delay, laches, estoppel unavailable despite long delay as continu....
Welfare State cannot deprive property without due process and compensation under Article 300A; cannot plead adverse possession or delay against owners seeking payment for land used in public road con....
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
