Welfare State cannot deprive property without due process and compensation under Article 300A; adverse possession unavailable to State; delay/laches no bar to suit for continuing deprivation of property rights.

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 15.01.2025 as passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 29/13 of 2023, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants/defendants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2023, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 72/1 of 2015, titled as Budhu vs. The Principal Secretary, Revenue & others, have been affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration and mandatory injunction was decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bilaspur, on 27.05.2015 on the ground that the land comprised in Khata/Khatoni No. 2, Khasra No. 102, 103, measuring 3-0 bighas, situated at Village Tramari, Pargna Rattanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. In the year 1980, the defendants had constructed Deoth-Lag Ghat Jamli link road and for that purpose, the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff was utilized. The officials of the defendants assured the plaintiff to compensate him for utilization of his land, however no steps were taken by him. Further, it has been averred in the plaint that the lands of Surjan Ram and Chet Ram were also acquired and utilized by the defendants for construction of the road in question in the year 1987 vide Award No. 1/87. When the plaintiff approached the defendants for the grant of compensation, no steps were taken by them for the reasons best known to them. Though, assurance was given to the plaintiff to compensate him, but till date, no compensation amount has been paid, therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owners in possession of the suit land and for mandatory injunction that since the defendants have utilized the suit land, therefore, the plaintiff sought vacant possession of the suit land.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants/State by raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, estoppel etc. On merits, it was averred that the defendants/appellants had constructed the road in question with the consent of the plaintiff in the year 1980 and the defendants had not given any assurance to the plaintiff to pay the compensation for the suit land. Lands of Surjan Ram and Chet Ram were acquired during the construction of the road in question and other portion of the road was constructed with the consent of the plaintiff. At the time of construction of the road, the plaintiff never raised any objection and now he cannot be permitted to raise objection that too after elapse of more than 35 years of the construction of road and consequently, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to the effect that plaintiff is recorded owner in possession qua the suit land, as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, as alleged ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, as al