Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J., SATYEN VAIDYA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Gian Chand – Respondent
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
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.
Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.
Landowners are entitled to due process and compensation for property utilized by the State without formal acquisition, as under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Article 300A only limits powers of State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
Constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it.
The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation without due process is violative of human 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.
The court affirmed that oral consent for land acquisition must be evidenced in writing, and deprivation of property without compensation violates constitutional 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....
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
