Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J., RANJAN SHARMA, J.
State of HP and Others - Applicants
Versus
Joginder Singh and Others - Respondents
CMP(M) No.2090 of 2024 in LPA No.64 of 2025 a/w CMP(M) No.77 of 2025 in LPA No.65 of 2025
Decided On : 28-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 300-A - Land Acquisition - Delay in filing appeals condoned - Appeals against judgments directing acquisition proceedings for land used in road construction - Court upheld previous judgments emphasizing that the State cannot take possession of land without compensation - The State's failure to file replies led to dismissal of appeals. (Paras 2, 4, 8, 12, 14)
(B) Legal Principles - The right to property is a constitutional right, and the State cannot evade its responsibility to compensate landowners due to delay and laches - The court emphasized that the appropriation of private property without due process is unacceptable. (Paras 8, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appeals were filed against judgments directing the initiation of acquisition proceedings for land used in road construction, with the State failing to contest the merits of the case. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the State's appeals, emphasizing the need for compensation when land is taken for public use. (Paras 8, 14)
Issues: The main issues included whether the State could take land without compensation and the validity of the appeals based on the absence of replies. (Paras 5, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State's actions in taking land without compensation were unlawful, reinforcing the principle that delay cannot bar justice in cases of land acquisition. (Paras 8, 14)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.
CMP[M] No.2090 of 2024 in LPA No.64 of 2025 and CMP(M) No.77 of 2025 in LPA No.65 of 2025
Keeping in view the averments made in the applications, duly supported by affidavits, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, delay of 153 days [in CMP(M) No.2090 of 2025] and 238 days [in CMP(M) No.77 of 2025] in filing the appeals are condoned.The applications stand disposed of.
The appeals be registered.
LPA Nos.64 and 65 of 2025
2. The present set of appeals have been directed against the judgments of learned Single Judge dated 14.05.2024 and 15.03.2024. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions by directing to initiate the acquisition proceedings qua the land used for construction of road namely Shimla Mataur Road, keeping in view the law settled by the Apex Court in Vidya Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 508.
3. Learned Single Judge also noticed that no reply had been filed and similar benefit already stood extended in the cases of Sat Dev Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., in CWP No.945 of 2022, decided on 29.08.2023, for the same stretch of land.
4. It is not disputed that the said judgment passed by learned Single Judge was upheld in LPA No.177 of 2024, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Satdev Sharma & Ors., and the Coordinate Bench, as such, was pleased to observe as under :-
“6. Learned Additional Advocate General is not able to point out any ground indicating that present case is not squarely covered by aforesaid verdicts of the Court.
7. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any other perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
8. We consider it fit to record that State is preferring the appeals despite dismissal of their similar appeals in identical matters. Such conduct is not in consonance with the Litigation Policy adopted by the State of HP which is causing wasting the time and energy of the State as well as the Court. It may invite imposing cost but taking lenient view, no cost is being imposed.
9. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with direction that consequential action, in terms of judgment dated 29.08.2023 passed in CWP No.945 of 2022 be taken within four weeks.
Appeal stands disposed of along with all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”
5. The sole argument as such which is now being raised by learned State Counsel is that an opportunity should be given to file a reply before learned Single Judge. The grounds of appeal, however, portray a different picture and paragraph No.3 states that the matter was contested on behalf of State by filing reply and that the road was constructed on popular demand. The relevant portion of the grounds of appeal, read as under :-
“3. That the petition was contested on behalf of the Appellants/State by filing the reply where it was averred that the road was constructed on popular demand with verbal consent of land owners including petitioner of the area. The villager’s voluntarily surrendered possession of their land, budgetary provision was made by the State and the construction of said road commenced. The road stood constructed immediately upon taking over the possession and the petition was barred by delay and latches.”
6. The said ground is also against the record as perusal of the reply filed by the State goes on to show that in Joginder Singh’s case, notice was issued on 21.12.2023 and the matter was taken up on 22.04.2024. On the said date, last opportunity of two weeks’ was granted to file reply, failing which it was observed that the Court would be constrained to decide the same on the next date of hearing i.e. 14.05.2024. Unfortunately on 14.05.2024, State chose not to file reply, leading to the disposal of the matter by lear
The State cannot take possession of land without compensation, and delay cannot bar justice in land acquisition cases.
(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....
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 right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation without due process is violative of human rights.
Landowners are entitled to due process and compensation for property utilized by the State without formal acquisition, as under Article 300A of the Constitution.
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.
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....
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.
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
