Landowners are entitled to compensation for land utilized for public purposes unless there is clear evidence of voluntary surrender, as mandated by Article 300-A of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice

Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by Learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.1128 of 2023, decided on 29.08.2023, whereby learned Single Judge directed that acquisition be made for the land in question, which was required for construction of the road, keeping in view the mandate under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683 and Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508, by noticing that the land of the petitioner stands utilized for construction of road two decades back but till date, petitioner has not been paid any amount. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments of Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68 and Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 9 SCC 356 to grant the relief.

3. Contention of counsel for the State that there is delay in approaching this Court and therefore, learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the appeal.

4. A perusal of the record would go on to show that it is the case of the writ petitioner that Shillai-Naya Gatta Mandwich, road was not motorable and the same had been constructed by HPPWD and the acquisition has not been done. The road was leading to many villages as such the land used in the road is prime land on which many types of fruit plants and other valuable timber wood trees were standing.

5. Reference was also made to decision in Civil Writ Petition No.8130 of 2010, titled as Kalyan Singh & Others versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 09.04.2021, whereby the writ petition of similarly situated persons was allowed and LPA No.149 of 2021, titled as Usha Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others preferred against the said order had been dismissed.

6. Reference was also made to the judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. No.3189 of 2022, titled as Kalyani (Dead) Through LRs & Others versus The Sulthan Bathery Municipality & Others, decided on 26.04.2022 [Annexure P-2, in Writ Petition].

7. The stand of the State in the reply filed before the Learned Single Judge was that the road connectivity was completed in the year 1970-71 by the Block Development Authority and later-on it was handed over to HPPWD for its preparation/renovation. At the time of construction of the road, all the people of village, including writ petitioner voluntarily offered their land and never raised any objection and therefore, there was the delay of 50 years as such, the appropriate remedy was to approach the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction.

8. The plea taken was that the land has been utilized on account of the fact that the owners of the land donated the land for construction of road keeping in view the limited financial resources of the State. The writ petitioner and his predecessors had not objected to its utilization.

9. While controverting the pleadings, it was submitted that in cases of all similarly situated persons against the judgment in LPA the State has assailed the same in SLP, which is stated to be pending. It has not been brought to our notice that there is any stay in the said case.

10. The benefit as such has been granted to similarly situated persons. We are of the considered opinion that the similar issue was considered by us regarding the aspect of donation and the fact that no material as such has been placed on record by the State regarding any written consent taken by the land owners. It is also not their case that documents as such are not traceable on account of long delay. It is apparent that a plea has been taken without any basis. The land owners had never consented for the said acquisition.

11. In similar circumstances, we have dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal No.43 of 2025, titled as