Forcible dispossession without due process violates constitutional rights, necessitating initiation of acquisition proceedings and compensation regardless of alleged delay.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the above captioned cases, coupled with the fact that similar relief has been claimed, all these matters were heard together and are now being disposed of vide this common order.

2. Petitioners, in all the above captioned cases, are aggrieved on account of non-payment of compensation qua their land used for construction of road namely Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo, Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan. In year 1994 respondent/ State constructed aforesaid road using land of the petitioners, but without initiating proceedings for acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after to be referred as “Act”), as a result whereof, no compensation has been paid to the petitioners till date. Since despite repeated requests, respondents failed to initiate acquisition proceedings, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main reliefs:

“(i) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Court petition may be allowed through with cost and the respondents may kindly be directed to initiate the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land of the petitioner utilized for the construction of road from Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo in Tehsil Ramshehar, earlier Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, as envisaged under the Right to Fair Compensation ad Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in a time bound manner and pay the compensation to the petitioners and other benefits including payment of damages of the land illegally utilized since 2005 till the compensation is awarded in their favour after summoning the record of the respondents and justice be done.”

3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent/ State has filed reply in all the above captioned cases and rejoinders thereto also stand filed. Claim, put forth in the instant petition on behalf of the petitioners, has been sought to be refuted by respondents on the ground of delay and laches. Apart from above, it has been also claimed on behalf of the respondents that while road was bein g constructed, no objection was ever raised, rather residents of that area including petitioners voluntarily donated the land for construction of link road with the clear understanding that they shall not claim any compensation.

4. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while fairly admitting the factum with regard to use of the land of the petitioners for construction of road in question, argued that though there is no written document adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that land was ever donated or there was any consent, but certainly implied consent can be inferred from the fact that petitioners remained silent for more than 25 years, which fact itself is sufficient to establish factum with regard to implied consent on behalf of the petitioners for construction of road in question through their land. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while inviting the attention of this Court to judgment passed by this Court in Shankar Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. in CWP No. 1966 of 2010 submitted that otherwise also, appropriate remedy, if any, for the petitioners for redressal of their grievance is to approach a Civil Court by way of Civil suit. While referring to judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar 1995 (4) SCC 683 , learned Advocate General further argued that the claim being highly stale, deserves outright rejection.

5. To