Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Principal Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Kanshi Ram (deceased) through LRs – Respondent
The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26.04.203, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 19/13 of 2022, whereby the judgment dated 01.01.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 265-1 of 2015 has been affirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on the ground that they are the owners of the suit land comprising in Khata Khatoni No. 38min/47, Khasra No. 417, measuring 2-06 bighas situated at Village Lag, Pargana Rattanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P .
3. Appellants/defendants utilized the land of the respondents/plaintiffs for construction of link road namely Deoth Lag Ghat-Jamli in 1987 and assured the respondents/plaintiffs that compensation upon initiating the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act will be paid to the respondents/plaintiffs. It was further averred that land of the other similar situated persons namely, Surjan Singh and Chet Ram were acquired vide Award No. 1 of 1981, after the construction of the above said road and when the plaintiff approached
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....
State cannot deprive individuals of property without due process and must provide just compensation if property is utilized for public use.
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.
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 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....
State cannot dispossess individuals of property or utilize land for public purpose without legal acquisition and just compensation, reinforcing constitutional property rights.
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....
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
