IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 2006 of 2024 and LPA No. 485 of 2024.

Date of Decision : 21 s t December , 2024 .

State of H.P. & Ors. ...Applicants/Appellants.

Versus Siri Ram & Ors. ....Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the Appellants/Applicants(s): Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sidharath Jalta, Deputy Advocate General.

For the respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).

CMP(M) No. 2006 of 2024.

Notice. Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. In view of the averments made in the application as also on account of non opposition thereto, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA No. 485 of 2024

3. Notice. Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, learned counsel waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. Heard.

5. Aggrieved against the non payment of compensation by the appellants despite use of their land for construction of road, namely, “Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo” road, the respondents had filed CWP No.

3147 of 2023.

6. The appellants had contested the prayer of the respondents on the grounds that the claim of respondents was highly belated; the land of respondents had been utilized with their consent and the respondents had enjoyed the facility of road and were thus estopped from filing the petitions.

7. Learned Single Judge after taking the settled legal position into account more particularly, the exposition of law in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, (2020)2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022)7 SCC 508 has negated all the pleas raised by the appellants and further, reliance has been placed on Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020)9 SCC 356 to observe that though right of property is not a fundamental right yet it is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Thus, the principle that respondents could not be deprived of their property save by the authority of law, has been upheld.

8. In result, learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to initiate acquisition proceedings under the relevant statute in respect of the land of the respondents and to pay just and fair compensation to them.

9. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the grounds that the claim of the respondents was highly belated and since, the respondents had consented for utilization of their land for construction of the road, they were not entitled to any relief. Appellants have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Shankar Dass vs. State of H.P., CWP No. 1966 of 2010, decided on 02.03.2013, whereby in the identical facts situation, the appropriate remedy was held to be the filing of a Civil Suit. The appellants have also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar, (1995)4 SCC 683 to support its contention.

10. In our considered view, issues sought to be raised by the appellants are no more res integra. In Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022)7 SCC 508, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in almost identical fact situation, after placing reliance on Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, (2020)2 SCC 569 has held as under:-

“23. This court, in Vidya Devi (supra) facing an almost identical set of facts and circumstances – rejected the contention of ‘oral’ consent to be baseless and outlined the responsibility of the State:

“12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] where