Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J., RANJAN SHARMA, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Appellants
Versus
Charan Dass - Respondent
LPA No: 68 of 2025
Decided on : 01-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 300-A - Right to property - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - The State of Himachal Pradesh sought to condone a delay of 93 days in filing an appeal against a judgment directing the acquisition of land for road construction and payment of compensation. The court found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - The petitioner, Charan Dass, sought compensation for land utilized for road construction under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, which was not acquired legally. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation as similar benefits were granted to adjoining landowners. (Paras 4-5)
(C) Legal Principles - The court reaffirmed that the right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and any deprivation must follow due process and provide compensation unless voluntary consent is proven. (Paras 6(i), 6(vi))
(D) Findings of Court - The court upheld the single judge's decision, emphasizing that the State's failure to provide compensation for land utilized for public purposes violated constitutional rights. (Paras 15) (E) Issues - The main issues included the legality of land acquisition without compensation and the applicability of the principle of parity in compensation among landowners. (Paras 4, 15) (F) Ratio Decidendi - The court ruled that the State cannot deprive landowners of their property without compensation, and the principle of parity must be upheld in similar cases. (Paras 6(vi), 15) (G) Result - The appeal was dismissed, and the State was directed to initiate acquisition proceedings and award compensation to the petitioner within one year. (Paras 15)
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
CMP(M) No. 107 of 2025
State of Himachal Pradesh, being appellant, has filed this application seeking condonation of 93 days delay in filing accompanying Letters Patent Appeal, in assailing the judgement dated 13.08.2024, {referred as Impugned Judgement}, passed by Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4226 of 2022.
Perusal of the application reveals that appellant received intimation of passing of judgementdated 13.08.2024 from office of Advocate General on 26.09.2024 and thereafter steps were taken by Land Acquisition Collector and Executive Engineer, Karsog on 28.09.2024 and then by Engineer-in- Chief (PW), and the Govt, when, advice from Law Department was received on 21.10.2024. Thereafter the Appellant No 1-Secretary (PW) vide letter dated 30.11.2024 directed the official concerned to assail the impugned judgement in LPA. Pursuant thereto, steps were taken for drafting LPA by Executive Engineer, Karsog and upon approval of the higher authorities, LPA was vetted on 16.12.2024 and was submitted to the office of learned Advocate General on 18.12.2024. The draft LPA was vetted and was finally filed before this Court on 02.01.2025.
Upon listing of this application, this Court accepts the reasons indicating sufficient cause, for condoning delay of 93 days in filing accompanying LPA, appears to be bonafide and even averments are supported by an affidavit coupled with the fact that the delay sought to be condoned is nominal is accordingly condoned and the instant application stands disposed of.
LPA No. 68 of 2025
Appellant-State has come up against the judgement dated 13.08.2024 in CWP No. 4226 of 2022 in Re. Charan Dass versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby Learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-State Authorities to initiate the process for acquiring subject land of the petitioner which was utilized for construction of road inaccordance with law within eight weeks from the date of passing of judgement, with directions to appellants herein to complete entire process within one year thereafter.
FACTUAL MATRIX LEADING TO PASSING OF IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT
2. Writ petitioner, Charan Dass, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to acquire his land comprising in Khata Khatauni No. 61, Khasra Nos. 428 & 429, situated at Mohal Kot, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi and to pay him the compensation in accordance with law. The above prayer was made on the factual platform that the respondents had constructed a link road i.e. Mahota-Bagshar Road over and above the subject land of the petitioner and neither land has been acquired nor any compensation has been paid to petitioner whereas State Authorities have acquired land and disbursed compensation to other co-owners of adjoining land parcel, namely, Bhoop Ram and Neem Chand in pursuant to the judgements dated 24.06.2016 and 5.7.2016, passed in their respective petitions i.e. CWP No. 2386 of 2009 (Bhoop Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others) and CWP No 3090 of 2009 (Neem Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh). Incompliance thereto, acquisition proceedings were initiated by State Authorities and utilized lands were acquired and compensation was released in terms of the Award dated 22.02.2022 [Annexure P-2 Colly]. After passing of award in case of Bhoop Ram and Neem Chand supra, the writ petitioner submitted representation on 21.4.2022 for similar benefits, on which the Land Acquisition Collector vide communication dated 27.04.2022 directed the Executing Engineer, HPPWD Division Karsog, District Mandi to take appropriate action and even Special Secretary [Public Works] vide office letter dated 04.05.2022 directed Executive Engineer concerned to take necessary action in the matter but in vain.
STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES IN WRIT PROCEEDINGS:
3. State Authorities filed a reply-affidavit admitting that Mahota-Bagshar Road was constructed under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yoj
The right to property under Article 300-A mandates compensation for land acquisition, and the State cannot deprive landowners of their property without due process and compensation.
The court affirmed that oral consent for land acquisition must be evidenced in writing, and deprivation of property without compensation violates constitutional rights.
Landowners have a constitutional right to compensation for land utilized for public projects, and claims cannot be dismissed based on implied consent or delay in seeking redress.
Landowners are entitled to due process and compensation for property utilized by the State without formal acquisition, as under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.
The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation without due process is violative of human rights.
(1) State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches in such a situation – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice.(2) Acquisition of land – Nobody can be deprived of liberty or pro....
Article 300A only limits powers of State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
Welfare state cannot deprive property without due process and compensation for public use like road construction; adverse possession, delay, laches, estoppel unavailable despite long delay as continu....
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
