Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Piar Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized road on private land triggers injunction suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. laches and estoppel reject stale compensation claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. title holder demands acquisition absent adverse possession. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. article 300a mandates due process and compensation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. no second appeal interference without substantial law question. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. appeal dismissed upholding lower courts' decree. (Para 26 , 27) |
The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. dated 18.10.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the State has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, dated 11.11.2022 has been affirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory under Section 9 ,26 Order 7 Rule 1 C.P.C and Sections 34, 38 and 39 of Specific Relief Act.
3. It was averred in the plaint that the suit land comprised in Kha
State cannot deprive property owner of land for public road without due process of acquisition and compensation under Article 300A; defenses of delay, acquiescence, estoppel, and adverse possession r....
State cannot deprive individuals of property without due process and must provide just compensation if property is utilized for public use.
State cannot utilize private land for roads without due process and compensation; unsubstantiated oral consent rejected; welfare state barred from adverse possession; concurrent findings upheld absen....
The right to property is a constitutional right that cannot be taken without due process of law, and plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for land used by the State for public purposes.
State cannot deprive citizen of property for public use without due process and compensation under Article 300A; welfare state barred from adverse possession claim; delay/laches inapplicable to conti....
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 prope....
State must compensate citizens for property utilized for public projects under due process. Delay in claiming rights does not preclude entitlement if injustice persists.
State cannot dispossess individuals of property or utilize land for public purpose without legal acquisition and just compensation, reinforcing constitutional property rights.
Welfare state cannot deprive property without due process and compensation for public use like road construction; adverse possession, delay, laches, estoppel unavailable despite long delay as continu....
Welfare State cannot deprive property without due process and compensation under Article 300A; cannot plead adverse possession or delay against owners seeking payment for land used in public road con....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
