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.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Since despite utilization of land of the petitioners for the construction of road namely Jarol-Khai Ghat via Behna, no steps were taken by the respondents for acquisition of the land of the petitioners and no compensation was paid to the petitioners, they are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main reliefs:

“a) Writ or Mandamus, or any other writ, order, directions be issued to the respondents to follow the procedure of law by initiating proceedings under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT for acquiring the land of the petitioner in Khasra No. 346 situated at Mohal Sohar, Sub-Tehsil Dehar, District Mandi, H.P.

b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to proceed in accordance with law in a time bound manner so that further harassment/ litigations, humiliation of the petitioners could be avoided.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that in 2003-04, respondent-State constructed a link road namely Jarol-Khai Ghat via Behna under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. Though, for the construction of aforesaid road, land of petitioners came to be utilized by the respondent-State, but the petitioners were not paid any compensation.

3. Though respondent vide Notification dated 11.10.2018, issued under S.4 of LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, ordered acquisition of three Khasra Nos. 17/1, 20/1 and 270/1 situate in Hadbast Village Jyor/66 and Land Acquisition Collector passed award No. 1 of 2020, dated 9.10.2020, but other Khasra numbers of the adjoining Mohal, wherein land of the petitioners was situated, were neither acquired nor he was paid any compensation.

4. Though petitioners repeatedly requested the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings qua their land used for construction of road in question but in vain as such, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced herein above.

5. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have filed reply, under the signatures of Superintending Engineer, 1^st Circle, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, wherein facts as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed rather stand admitted.

6. Claim of the petitioners for compensation raised in the instant petition has been sought to be refuted by the respondents on the ground of delay and laches. Besides above, it has been stated in reply that while the road was being constructed, petitioners and similarly situate persons never raised objection rather voluntarily donated land for construction of link road.

7. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this court peruse pleadings adduced on record vehemently argued that though there is no written document suggestive of the fact that land was ever donated but definitely there is implied consent of the villagers for the construction of link road. He submitted that the very fact that the petitioners remained silent for more than 20 years, is sufficient to establish factum with regard to implied consent of the petitioners for constru