Landowners cannot be deprived of property rights without legal acquisition and compensation, stressing constitutional protections.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice State in the present Letters Patent Appeal seeks consideration of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7550/2022 titled Baragi Ram and others Vs. State of HP and others dated 04.09.2023, wherein directions have been issued to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute for the land which has been utilized by the State for the construction of the road, namely, Jarol-Khai Ghat via Behana.

2. The learned Single Judge noticed that the respondents constructed a link road, namely, ‘Jarol-Khai Ghat via Behna’ under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (hereinafter referred to as PMGSY”) in the year 2003-2004. The respondents, vide notification had ordered acquisition of three khasra numbers situated in village Jyor-66 and Award No. 1/2020 dated 09.10.2020, was also passed but other khasra numbers of the adjoining village Mohal wherein the land of the petitioners was situated were not acquired. Resultantly, the judgments in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Rattra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2022) 7 SCC 508, were taken into consideration while issuing necessary directions and also the judgments in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68, and Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 9 SCC 356, were fallen back upon to take the support of Article 300A of the Constitution to the effect that land owners cannot be deprived of the right of property save by the authority of law.

3. The argument of the State was repelled that there was implied consent as such and thus, on account of delay and laches as the land owners remained silent for 20 years, the compensation should not be paid since the usage of the road had started in the year 2003- 2004. Counsel for the State further stressed on two issues, i.e., implied consent and delay as such in approaching the Court.

4. In similar situation, for the same road, we had in LPA No. 168 of 2025 titled State of HP and others versus Surya Kant decided on 16.05.2025 upheld the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.01.2025. In the said case also, it was noticed that there was a reference to CWP No. 3760/2009 titled Durgi Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 05.07.2016 and the fact that there was notification dated 11.10.2018 to acquire the land of village Jyor-66 and the Award had been passed on 09.10.2020. It has also been noticed that the road as such had been slowly added from the initial stage of 7 KMs up to 16 KMs and resultantly, we had come to the concussion that the similar land owners as such had been paid compensation and the judgment had attained finality and therefore, issue of delay as such could not be raised as the land of the petitioners in that case fell on the stretch of 13 KMs to 16 KMs which is the last utilized stretch.

5. A bare perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition would go on go show that the judgment in Durgi Devi’s case (supra) which has been appended as Annexure P7, has been relied upon apart from the Award dated 09.10.2020 Annexure P-6, which pertains to the land situated in village Jyor-66.

6. Written statement as such filed by the State also admits in the same tenure that the road was initially constructed up t