Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Since despite there being utilization of the land of the petitioner for construction of “Thana Prem Nagar road via Turan, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla”, petitioner has not been paid compensation by the department after acquiring the land, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main reliefs:

“(a) Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceeding qua the land of the petitioner used for the construction of Thana Premnagar road via Turan denoted by Khasra Nos. 34 and 35, situated at Up-Mohal Premnagar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, HP as reflected in Jamabandi Annexure P-1.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerges from the record are that the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra Nos. 34 & 35, situate at Up Mohal Premnagar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, came to be utilized for the construction of “Thana Prem Nagar road via Turan, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla” in the year 1990, but since respondents failed to initiate acquisition proceedings and no compensation was paid to the petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and thereafter pay compensation.

3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed the reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed herein above, are not in dispute, rather stand duly admitted. Precisely, the claim of the petitioner, as has been raised in the petition, has been refuted by the respondents on the ground that present petition is barred by delay and laches and land was made available by the petitioner of his own volition with clear-cut understanding that he would not seek any compensation. Besides above, it has also been averred in the reply filed by the respondents that road in question was constructed on the persistent demand of the residents of the area, with clear cut understanding that they shall claim no compensation.

4. Mr. Munish Datwalia, learned representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that land of the petitioner stands utilized for construction of the road in question, respondents cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation after initiation of the proceedings in terms of provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. He further submitted that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that consent, if any, was ever given by the petitioner to provide the land free of cost. While placing heavy reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vidya Devi v. State of HP and Ors , 2020 (2) SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra and Anr v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors , 2022 (7) SCC 508 Mr. Datwalia, argued that plea of delay and laches cannot be raised in the case of continuing cause of action, especially, in land acquisition matters. He also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 18.7.2023, passed by this Court in CWP No. 8647 of 2022, titled Sh. Ramanand and Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors , whereby this Court, while placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, rejected the plea of delay and laches raised by the respondents-State and directed respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings.

5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently