The court affirmed that landowners are entitled to compensation under Article 300A when their land is utilized for public purposes without proper acquisition procedures.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

Consideration is sought in the present Letters Patent Appeal to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 10652/2023 decided on 24.10.2024, whereby the learned Single Judge issued directions to the appellant/State to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute of the land of the petitioners and pay just and fair compensation to them. The land having been utilized as such in the year 2006, led to the said direction being passed by the learned Single Judge as such for construction of the Beulia-Koel-Sanog road. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgments inState of Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68, and Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 9 SCC 356 for the grant of necessary relief while falling back on Article 300A of the Constitution of India and while repelling the argument raised that the land had been utilized on account of the consent of the land owners that they would not seek compensation.

2. A perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition would go on to show that the construction of the road was done in the year 2014-2015 and compensation was not paid. Similarly situated person, namely, Sheela Tegta had approached this Court by filing CWP No. 360 of 2016 which was allowed on 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-2).

3. The pleaded case of the petitioners was that the road was made motorable and functional in the year2016 but till date, the compensation has not been paid and representation had then been submitted on 06.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) giving facts of the similarly situated persons, namely, Sheela Tegta. It has been submitted that the petitioners are rustic villagers and could not be divested of their land and their constitutional rights as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution and no decision had been taken on the said representation.

4. The stand of the State as such was that there was voluntary surrender of land and a huge amount of Rs.246.290 crore had been spent to construct the road.

5. A perusal of the writ record would go on to show that the road was being constructed under the World Bank Scheme and administrative approval and expenditure sanction had been accordingly given. Plea of delay and laches as such was taken. It was the stand of the respondents that since the villagers have consented to the construction of the road, therefore, the remedy was to approach the Civil Court and therefore, there is admission regarding the conversion and usage of the land of the petitioners. The distinction sought to be done from Sheela Tegta’s case was without any basis as the facts of that case were different.

6. It is pertinent to notice that State has in its reply never taken a plea that they had preferred any appeal in the case of Sheela Tegta (supra) and therefore, when the similarly situated persons had been granted compensation for the same purpose, we do not find any valid reason why other similarly situated land owners could be deprived of the same benefits on the principle enshrined under Articles 14 and 300A of the constitution.

7. Another aspect is that nothing has been brought on record that the State had taken any written consent from the land owners. It is also not their case that such consent was taken but documents were not traceable. Therefore, onus lies upon the State in what manner it has used the land/property of the petitioners as such for public purpose without having initiating any process for acquisition of the land.

8. In the rejoinder (sic-replication), filed by the petitioners, it was pleaded that there was no evidence on record that respondents had utilized the land of the petitioners by initiating any process for acquisition under the land Acquisition Act and that procedure had been initiated for acquisition of their land. The State as such could not deprive the persons of their property without due process or authorization and further that the plea of delay and