State's failure to comply with land acquisition proceedings warrants compensation for affected landowners, affirming their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

Present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was allowed in terms of the judgment passed in CWP No.5048 of 2022 titled as Kusum and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 04.07.2023, which had also been decided by the same Learned Single Judge and appended in support of the writ petition as Annexure P-3.

2. The directions in the said case, as such, were to demarcate the land of the writ petitioners utilized by the appellants for construction of the road in question, within four weeks and which was deemed to have been acquired for the construction of the road and compensation negotiated in terms of the Negotiated Award No.1/2019, passed on 11.06.2019, which had been appended with the Civil Writ Petition as Annexure P-2. The land was utilized for public purpose i.e. for the construction of Jong to Jaindi road. The argument raised by learned State Counsel is that there is delay of more than 32 years in approaching the Writ Court and therefore, the judgment in State of Maharashtra versus Digamber reported in (1995) 4 SCC 683 would be applicable. Counsel for the State has further pointed out that in Kusum’s case (supra), an SLP has been filed vide diary No.53594 of 2024. Apparently, against the order of the learned Single Judge, in CMP.M No.475 of 2024, the Coordinate Bench has dismissed the same on the ground of limitation, which was barred by 256 days.

3. Resultantly, we proceed to discuss the issue on merit, as apparently, the reply filed by State is contrary to the stand taken on the ground of delay. The writ-petitioner’s specific case was that the land had been utilized for the said purpose and Award No.1/2019, dated 11.06.2019 was passed where compensation was paid to the other landowners.

4. A perusal of the said Award would go on to show that it was issued for the land situated in Village Bari, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, whereas, land in question herein is of Mohal, Jatehar, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. The purpose of acquisition was the same. The pleadings as such was that the writ petitioner was made to run from pillar to post for justice and the respondents had not bothered to acquire the land of the writ petitioner and to pay her due and admissible compensation for the utilization of the land.

5. The reply filed by the State as such was that CWP No.6811 of 2014, titled as Mukund Lal versus State of H.P. and others, which had been preferred by some landowners and the acquisition proceedings were started in the year 1996, but the same could not be completed within the stipulated period and the Award could not be announced as all codal formalities could not be completed within stipulated period as per the provision of the Act.

6. In the year 2008, the Department had again started process for acquisition, but the same could not be completed and the acquisition proceedings lapsed. Resultantly orders were passed on 29.12.2024 in the said case to complete acquisition proceeding with regard to the land which was situated in Mohal Pangan and that the land acquisition papers were sent only of those Khasra numbers. It is thus apparent that the State has been selective regarding initiation of the acquisition proceedings, though initially it had initiated the proceedings but never completed the codal formalities by its own lapse. As such, it cannot now turn around that the delay is specifically on the part of the land owners that they were insisting for the compensation and the State apparently did start acquisition proceedings k