The court affirmed that oral consent for land acquisition must be evidenced in writing, and deprivation of property without compensation violates constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

State of Himachal Pradesh, has come up before this Court in Letters Patent Appeal, assailing the judgment passed by Learned Single Judge in Amar Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, CWP No.9090 of 2022, decided on 14.05.2024, {herein, the Impugned judgement} whereby, the writ petition filed by the Respondent herein-Writ petitioner Amar Singh was allowed with directions to appellants herein to initiate the acquisition proceedings of land used for the construction of road, within a period ofsix weeks.

FACTUAL MATRIX IN WRIT PETITION IN CWP No. 9090 OF 2022:

2 Respondent-writ petitioner, Amar Singh, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to the State Authorities- Appellants herein to initiate acquisition proceedings qua the land as described in writ petition under the Land Acquisition Act and with second prayer to allow exchange of 4 Marlas of government owned in Khasra No 111 in lieu of 6 Marlas of his land in Khasra No. 124, which was utilized for construction of road during the year 1984-1985 from Hamirpur to Sarkaghat via Bhukkar Bajoura, Tanamorh, Kalahu [Amroh to Chandruhi as per reply].

In this background, the writ petition was filed by respondent-Amar Singh herein.

STAND OF STATE IN WRIT PROCEEDINGS:

3. Appellants-State Authorities had filed a reply to the writ petition stating that the petitioner has neither any legal nor fundamental right. So far as the construction of link road from Amroh to Chandruhi, it was stated in Reply-Affidavit that road was constructed in the years 1984-1985, over Khasra No. 124, situated in Mohal Tan-Amroh from Kilometers 0/000 to Kilometers 4/225 by the State Authorities- Appellants herein. It was averred in the reply that the land owners including writ petitioner-respondent herein did not raise any objection at the time of construction of road. It was pleaded that petitioner had never raised any demand for compensation for utilized land. It was averred that the road was constructed as per their own demand and the villagers have utilized aforesaid land. So far as the claim of petitioner for exchanging his 6 Marlas of utilized land in Khasra No 124 with 4 Marlas of government land in exchange in Khasra No.111, the reply stated that the petitioner was an encroacher on Government land in Khasra No. 111 and Government land cannot be exchanged in lieu of private land.

With aforesaid averments, the prayer was made for dismissing the writ petition.

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 14.5.2024:

4. The writ petition, CWP No. 9090 of 2022, titled as Amar Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others was decided by Learned Single Judge on 14.05.2024. So far as the claim of the petitioner for compensation is concerned, Learned Single Judge directed the appellants/respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings for the land utilized for the construction of road, within six weeks, after negativating the contention of the State Authorities- Appellants herein regarding delay and laches. So far as second claim of the petitioner, for awarding or giving him alternative piece of Government land in Khara No.111, measuring 4 Marlas in lieu of his 6 Marlas of land in Khasra No.124 utilized by the State Authorities for construction of road, the plea was not accepted by Learned Single Judge with specific finding recorded in Para-4 of the judgment that there was no policy which permits the exchange of Government land in lieu of private land utilized for construction of road by the State Authorities. In this background, the writ petition was allowed only to the limited extent of directing the State Authorities -Appellants herein to initiate acquisition proceedings for having utilized the land of the Respondent herein for construction of road in question.

PROCEEDINGS IN INSTANT LPA:

5. The judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge on 14.05.2024 has been assailed in Letters Patent Appeal by the State Authorities along with an application under Sect