The State must compensate landowners when private land is utilized for public purposes, as established by legal precedent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 10781 of 2024 th Decided on 07 July 2025 Smt. Saira Bibi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Moha n Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate, vice Ms. Anjana Khan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Ajay M ohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to calculate and pay the amount of compensation as per market price/value prevailing nowadays to the Extent of 00-10-00 biswas of land, 00-07-00 biswa from comprised in Khata Khatouni No.244/266, Khasra No 658, Measuring 02-11-15 Bighas and 00-03-00 biswa from Khata Khatouni No. 260/259. Khasra No. 1470/665, Measuring 00-06-04 situated at Mohal Dugrain, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi utilized for the purpose of road construction Kanaid-Dinak road.

ii) To acquire the land or the takeover of the land 00-10-00 biswa, 00-07-00 from comprised in Khata Khatouni No 244/266, Khasra No 658, Meas.uring 02-11-15 Bighas and 00-03-00 from Khata KPhatouni No. 260/259. Khasra No. 1470/665, Measuring 00- 06-04 situated at Mohal Dugrain, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi to the ExteHnt of 00-10-00 biswas for the purpose of road may kindly be treated as deemed acquisition and to pay all the statutory benefits under the land Acquisition Act, 1894.”

2. The case of the pe titioner is that the land, details whereof are given in the wrrit petition, has been utilized by the State for the purpose of the construction of a road without compensating the petitioner. Details of the land are given in Para-3 of the writ petition, which is stated to be earlier owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, who thereafter has inherited the property. The land is stated to have been utilized for the purpose of the construction of Kanaid-Dinak Road, which construction was completed as per the petitioner in the 2009-10.

3. The reply of the respondents is to the effect that the road was constructed on the request of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as well as the other villagers to provide them the road connectivity and as the construction was carried in the larger interest of the public by spending money and as the petition has been filed .after inordinate delay of 15 years, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. H

4. In rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the stand taken in the petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleaduings.

6. It is onot in dispute that the land of the predecessorC-in-interest of the petitioner was utilized by the State for the purpose of the construction of the land. Though, the State has taken the plea that the land was constructed on the request of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and H other land owners, however, save and except these bald assertions made in the writ petition, there is no material placed on record by the respondents-State from where this fact can be substantiated. There is no gift deed or any other holding out expressly made by the predecessor-in-interest or other villagers that the land was being parted away by the land owners voluntarily with the express condition that they shall not be claiming any compensation in lieu of the same being utilize.d for the purpose of the construction of the road.

7. Therefore, in the light of the fact thaH