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 construction.

JUDGMENT :

ROMESH VERMA, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. dated 04.08.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the State-appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No.295/2016 dated 26.09.2023 has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief for mandatory injunction on the ground that Smt. Paharo Karodhu (daughter of Mehlar son of Dhari) and Ganpat (son of Lokha, son, of Kanhiya) were in possession of the land comprised in Khata No.8/15. It is further averred in the plaint that during the settlement and even before that, the entry of Gair Mumkin sadak was effected in the revenue record. Although, the State of Himachal Pradesh through the HP public works department had encroached over the land being owned by the plaintiffs/respondents for the construction of road and even the road was also constructed by the State, however, no compensation was paid to the plaintiffs/respondents. The consolidation took place in the area and again Khata, Khatauni and Khasra numbers and new Khata No. 20/22 min Khasra No. 291 land measuring 0-08-92 hect, came into existence and the entries of the road continued in the column of possession in Misal Hakiyat for the year 1991-1992.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer (defendant No.3) issued notice under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT for acquiring the land of the plaintiffs/respondents and thereafter notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT was issued as per negotiation on 11.04.2000. Further, the negotiated rates were approved by defendants No.1 and 2 and Rs.45,000/- per biswas, in lump sum, in pursuance of the negotiated award No. 30 dated 26.03.2009, was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector i.e. defendant No.3. It was further averred that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to the compensation which was assessed on 26.03.2009 vide award No. 30 i.e. Rs. 9,92,336/- Though, it was averred in the plaint that there is no dispute with regard to the acquisition of land, but the compensation was withheld by the defendants under the pretext that the land was earlier acquired and the compensation was paid, but, in fact, no compensation has been paid to the plaintiffs/respondents.

4. It has further been averred that the plaintiffs/respondents and co-sharers have approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.5064 of 2010 and this Court by holding that highly disputed questions of fact are involved in the matter, the parties were relegated to pursue the proceedings by filing Civil Suit. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh Civil Suit before appropriate Court. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration and mandatory injunctions. That the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of compensation of suit land i.e. Khasra No.291 along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of award with consequential relief for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make the payment of Rs.9,92,336/- with interest @ 15 % w.e.f. the date of award i.e. 26.03.2009 till the payment or a