CWP No.940 of 2024 Decided on: 27.11.2024 _________________________________________________________________

Ajay Kumar ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents _________________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?, [IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.]

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.

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

_________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Since despite utilization of land of the petitioner for the construction of road namely, Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo and Ukhoo to Kurmala, no steps are being taken by the respondents for acquisition of his land and no compensation has been paid to him, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main relief:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed throughout with cost and the respondents may kindly be directed to initiate the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land of the petitioner utilized for the construction of road from Jabal Jai Nagar via Ukhoo and Ukhoo to Kurmala in Tehsil Ramshehar, earlier Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., as envisaged under the Right to Fair

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

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in a time bound manner and pay the compensation to the petitioner and other benefits including payment of damages of the land illegally utilized since 2005 till the compensation is awarded in his favour after summoning the record of the respondents and justice be done.”

2 Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the land of the petitioner comprised in Khewat/ Khatoni No. 11/15, Kita-23, bearing Khasra Nos. 163, 187, 189, 193, 194, 257, 259, 260, 261, 288, 354, 261, 364, 365, 431, 448, 460, 464, 510, 511, 513, 516, 525 measuring more than 25-00 Bighas, situate at Mohal Ukhoo, Hadbast No.136, Patwar Circle Ukhoo, Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, came to be utilized for the construction of road from “Jabal to Jai Nagar via Ukhoo” in the year 2005 and thereafter “Ukhoo to Kurmla” road was constructed in the year 2007, but since respondents failed to initiate acquisition proceedings and no compensation was paid to the petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and thereafter pay him compensation.

3 Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed the reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed herein above, are not in dispute, rather stand duly admitted. Precisely, the claim of the petitioner, as has been raised in the petition, has been refuted by the respondents on the ground that present petition is barred by delay and laches and that the land was made available by the petitioner of his own volition with clear-cut understanding that he would not seek any compensation. Besides above, it has also been averred in the reply filed by the respondents that the road in question was constructed on the persistent demand of the residents of the area, with clear cut understanding that they shall claim no compensation.

4 Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner stands utilized for construction of the road in question, respondents cannot escape from their liability to pay the compensation after initiation of the proceedings in terms of provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. He further sub