The court ruled that landowners are entitled to compensation for land utilized for public projects without proper acquisition, emphasizing constitutional rights and the invalidity of claims of voluntary donation.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

Since common question of facts and law are involved in both these Letters Patent Appeals, hence they are taken up together for disposal.

2. Consideration in these two set of Letters Patent Appeals is to the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.4256/2024 titled Chhaju Ram vs. State of HP and others dated 29.10.2024 (subject matter of LPA No. 215 of 2025) and in CWP No. 2786/2023 titled Gian Chand versus State of HP and others decided on 12.01.2024, subject matter of LPA No. 220 of 2025), whereby the writ petitions filed by the petitioner(s) therein were allowed.

3. The learned Single Judge while granting the relief as such to the petitioner in CWP No. 4256/2024 titled Chhaju Ram vs. State of HP and others dated 29.10.2024 (subject matter of LPA No. 215 of 2025) directed the State to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-a-vis land of the petitioner and thereafter to pay just and fair compensation qua the land of the petitioner within a period of two months since the same had been utilized for the construction of the road namely, Pung to Taleli via Chai Ka Dora.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed that in the year 1990-1991 road was constructed, namely, Pung to Taleli via Ghangnu under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna and while placing reliance upon the judgment in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Rattra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2022) 7 SCC 508. The relief as such was granted. Reliance on the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68, was also placed. Having recorded that there was nothing at hand to substantiate the stand of the State that the land was ever donated and offered by the petitioner for the construction of the road under the said Scheme, therefore, defence of the State was rejected.

5. The State has raised the issue of limitation and also the fact of voluntary surrender of land. A perusal of the writ record would go on to show that it was the case of the land owners that the road was constructed from Pung to Chai Ka Dora in the year 1987-88 and compensation was paid to the persons whose land was utilized for the construction of the said road in Mohal Ghangnu from Pung to Chai Ka Dora by the department but the compensation had not been paid to the persons whose land was utilized for Chai Ka Dora to Taleli. Thus, the petitioner being adversely affected, since the same had been done in the year 1990-1991, he had requested the department for grant of compensation but of no avail. The petitioner being a poor villager as such pleaded that he was entitled to seek the compensation and invoked the jurisdiction of the writ Court.

6. Now adverting to Gian Chand’s case in CWP No. 2786 of 2023, (subject matter of LPA No. 215 of 2025), another learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgment of Manbhari and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others CWP No. 2948 of 2023 decided on 19.11.2023 and therefore, granted the same relief. The writ record in Gian Chand’s case would also go on to show that plea of limitation was taken as such and compensation was not paid.

7. In the Reply to CWP No. 4256 of 2024 Chhaju Ram’s case filed by the State, the plea taken was that it was after a period of more than 42 years the petitioner has made an attempt to get unjust benefit as the vehicles were plying on the road since 1980-1981 and there was voluntary surrender of the land in favour of the State. It was admitted that the length of the road was 14.3000 km. The period of delay as such was highlighted.

8. Reply on merits in Gian Chand’s case in CWP No. 2786/2023, would also go on to show that the road was made fit for the vehicles only on 11.10.2000 and therefore, pleadings of the State that there was 25 years delay as such in approaching the authorities is apparently contradictory.

9. It has been brought to our notice that in similar circumstanc