Landowners cannot be deprived of property rights without lawful authority, and the burden of proof lies with the State to demonstrate voluntary donation of land.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice

Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State is to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1627/2023 titled Surya Kant vs. State of HP and others dated 09.01.2025, wherein directions have been issued to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute for the land which has been utilized by the State for the construction of the road, namely, Jarol-Khai Ghat via Behana.

2. The learned Single Judge noticed that the acquisition was for the land falling in Mohal Behana sub- Tehsil Dehar, District Mandi, HP and link road had to be constructed in the year 2003-2004. The respondents, vide notification had ordered acquisition of three khasra numbers situated in village Jyor and award No. 1/2020 was also passed but other khasra numbers of the adjoining village Mohal where the land was situated were not acquired. It is in such circumstances, the stand of the State that the road had been constructed on account of voluntary donation by the land owners was rejected. The judgments 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, were taken into consideration while issuing necessary directions and also the judgments in State 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, were fallen back to take the support of Article 300A of the Constitution to the effect that persons cannot be deprived of the right of property save by the authority of law.

3. The Counsel for the State principally argued the issue of delay and laches firstly, and secondly that the land as such was voluntarily donated therefore, the land owners were estopped from raising challenge to the acquisition proceedings.

4. A perusal of the writ record would go on to show that it was the case of the land owners that the construction of the road was done in the year 2003- 2004 and some other set of land owners had filed CWP No.3760/2009 titled Durgi Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 05.07.2016, resultantly, the Notification had been issued on 11.10.2018 to acquire the said land of the adjoining village Jyor. The award dated 09.10.2020 was also attached as Annexure P-3.

5. A perusal of the said Award would go on to show that the acquisition was for the construction of Jarol Behana Road in village Jyor and the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013. In such circumstances, the petition had been filed before this Court seeking the similar relief.

6. In the reply filed by the State stock reply as such was taken. It was argued that it has come on the record that initially the road was as such only for 7/0 K.Ms. in the year 1989. The allegation was that the people of the area had voluntary come forward to offer their land for the purpose of road connectivity and were desirous of such benefits. The subsequent portion from K.M.7/0 to K.M.13/0 was constructed in the year 2000 and opened for traffic on 10.11.2000 and another 3 Kms. were thereafter added up to 15 Kms. during the year 2004-2005. It is thus apparent that the construction of the road had continued since the year 2004-2005 and therefore the issue of delay as such cannot be raised now since it has been admitted by the respondent in para 3 of the written statement that the land of the petitioner falls under the stretch in KM 13 to KM 16, which is the last utilized stretch. It has also been admitted that Smt. Durgi Devi petitioner in CWP No.3760/2009 (supra) has been paid compensation and the judgment in the said case had attained finality. It is thus apparent that when the similarly situated person have been granted the benefit of the acquisition proceedings, the other land owners cannot as such