The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation without due process is violative of human rights.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Since despite utilization of land of the petitioner for the construction of road namely Kharapathar-Sari road, no steps are being taken by the respondents for acquisition of the land of the petitioner and no compensation is paid to him, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main reliefs:

“a) Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioner used for construction of Kharapthar - sari road denoted by Khasra No. 347, 348, 415, 447 and 448 situated at Mohal Sari, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P as reflected in Jamabandi Annexure P-1.”

2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply under the signatures of Superintending Engineer, 4^th Circle, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Rohru, wherein there is no denial to the fact that land of the petitioner stands utilized for construction of road, as detailed herein above, but attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches.

3. It is averred in the reply that road was constructed between the year 1985-86 and at that time, no objection, if any, was ever raised by the petitioner and other similarly situate persons and as such, at this stage, the petitioner is estopped from claiming compensation. It has been submitted in the reply that road in question was constructed on the persistent demand of the residents of the area with clear cut understanding that no compensation shall be claimed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that precisely the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. B.S. Chauan, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that at no point of time, consent, if any, was ever given by petitioner for construction of road on his land without compensation. Mr. Chauhan, while making this Court peruse pleadings adduced on record by respective parties vehemently argued that petitioner is continuously requesting respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay adequate compensation, but in vain.

5. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse pleadings adduced on record submitted that though there is no written document suggestive of the fact that the land was ever donated, but definitely there is implied consent of the petitioner for the construction of road through his land. He submitted that the very fact that petitioner remained silent for almost four decades, is sufficient to establish the factum with regard to implied consent of the petitioner for construction of road in question.

6. While making this Court peruse judgment passed by this Court in Shankar Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 1966 of 2010, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that otherwise also, appropriate remedy for the petitioner for redressal of his grievance is to approach a Civil Court by way of civil suit. Mr. Panwar also invited attention of this Court to judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683 to state that claim being highly stale, deserves outright rejection.

7. While refuting the aforesaid submission of Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel strenuously argued that Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 508, has already held that plea of delay and laches cannot be raised in the case of continuous cause of action, especially in land acquisition matter. He also invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 27.07.2023 passed in CWP No. 5928 of 2022