IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP No.73 of 2019 Decided on: 11.12.2024 _______________________________________________________________ Amar Singh ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

_______________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

CMP No.23869 of 2024 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Application stands disposed of.

CWP No.73 of 2019

2. Petitioner herein is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings on account of the fact that though respondents used his land comprised in Khasra Nos.887 and 734 measuring 00-05-67 hectares and 00-05-11 hectares falling in Patwar Circle Kalmog Dharan, for construction of road namely “Nankhari-Delath road”, however, fact remains that till date, no compensation has been paid. Since despite repeated

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

requests, respondents failed to initiate appropriate proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main relief:-

“i. That an appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to acquire the Khasra Nos. 887 and 734 measuring 00-05-67 hectares and 00-05-11 hectares falling in Patwar Circle Kalmog Dharan in accordance by law, by further directing the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitoiner for the above mentioned Khasra numbers as well as the apple trees which were upon such khasra numbers in accordance with law, in the interest of law and justice.”

3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply under the signatures of Superintending Engineer, 11^th Circle, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Rampur, wherein there is no denial to the fact that land of the petitioner stands utilized for construction of road, as detailed herein above, but attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches.

4. It is averred in the reply that road was constructed in the year 1988 and at that time, no objection, if any, was ever raised by the petitioner and other similarly situate persons and as such, at this stage, the petitioner is estopped from claiming compensation. It has been submitted in the reply that road in question was constructed on the persistent demand of the residents of the area with clear cut understanding that no compensation shall be claimed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that precisely the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that at no point of time, consent, if any, was ever given by petitioner for construction of road on his land without compensation. Mr. Bhushan, while making this Court peruse pleadings adduced on record by respective parties vehemently argued that petitioner is continuously requesting respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay adequate compensation, but in vain.

6. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse pleadings adduced on record submitted that though there is no written document suggestive of the fact that the land was ever donated, but definitely there is implied consent of the petitioner for the construction of road through his land. He submi