The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300A, and compensation must be paid for land used by the State without due process.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Aggrieved against the non payment of compensation by the appellants despite use of their land for construction of road, namely, “Bhunter-Diya-Shondha-Diyar” road, the respondents had filed CWP No. 3442 of 2021.

2. The appellants had contested the prayer of the respondents on the grounds that the claim of respondents was highly belated; the land of respondents had been utilized with their consent and the respondents had enjoyed the facility of road and were thus estopped from filing the petitions.

3. Learned Single Judge after taking the settled legal position into account more particularly, the exposition of law in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, (2020)2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022)7 SCC 508 has negated all the pleas raised by the appellants and further, reliance has been placed on Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020)9 SCC 356 to observe that though right of property is not a fundamental right yet it is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Thus, the principle that respondents could not be deprived of their property save by the authority of law, has been upheld.

4. In result, learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to initiate acquisition proceedings under the relevant statute in respect of the land of the respondents and to pay just and fair compensation to them.

5. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the grounds that the claim of the respondents was highly belated and since, the respondents had consented for utilization of their land for construction of the road, they were not entitled to any relief. Appellants have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Shankar Dass vs. State of H.P., CWP No. 1966 of 2010, decided on 02.03.2013, whereby in the identical facts situation, the appropriate remedy was held to be the filing of a Civil Suit. The appellants have also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar, (1995)4 SCC 683 to support its contention.

6. In our considered view, issues sought to be raised by the appellants are no more res integra. In Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022)7 SCC 508, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in almost identical fact situation, after placing reliance on Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, (2020)2 SCC 569 has held as under:-

“23. This court, in Vidya Devi (supra) facing an almost identical set of facts and circumstances – rejected the contention of ‘oral’ consent to be baseless and outlined the responsibility of the State:

“12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.

12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769] held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension.”

24. And with regards to the contention of delay and laches, this court went on to hold:

“12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continui