Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7030
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
Sh. Sandeep Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others – Respondent
CWP No. 500 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. C.N. Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur
Landowners have a constitutional right to compensation for land utilized without consent, ensuring state's accountability in land acquisition.
Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Constitution of India, Article 300(A) - Writ of mandamus filed for compensation regarding land utilized for road construction - Petitioner claimed land was used without compensation; State contended land was voluntarily surrendered - No evidence from State found to support surrender claim, thus right to compensation upheld. (Paras 2, 4, 7, 9)
(B) Property Rights - Right to property is constitutionally protected under Article 300(A) - Owner cannot be deprived of property without just compensation. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
Land of the petitioner was utilized for road construction without compensation, despite claims of voluntary surrender by the State, which were unsubstantiated.
Findings of Court:
The petition is allowed as the State cannot avoid compensating the petitioner for the utilized land.
Issues: Whether the land was voluntarily surrendered and thus if the petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the constitutional right to property and the obligation of the State to compensate for land use without owner’s consent.
Result: Writ petition allowed, direction for acquisition and compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compensation sought for land used in road construction. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments concerning voluntary surrender of land. (Para 4 , 5) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 500 of 2017 th Decided on 14 August 2025 Sh. Sandeep Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has pray ed for the following reliefs:-
i. “Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondents to initiate i the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land of the petitioner comprised in Khata-Khautauni No.56, Min/125 Khasra No.1073 area measuring 00-05-53 hectares situated in Chack Shallar, Tehsild Jubbal, District, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in terms of the provision of “ Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 .
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or directions directing the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings in time bound manner by passing award in favour of the petitioner.”
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his land, details whereof are given in the petition has been utilized for the construction of Nandpur/Anti-Ruhil Road, however, till date, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner for the said land. t
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that despite the fact that similarly situated persons have been duly compensated by the State, yet, despite various communications and legal notices issued by the petitioner, till date he has not been paid any compensation.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State has submitted that the respondent-Department had constructed the road after volunteer surrender of the land, which was consented to by the late father of the petitioner as well as other land owners. He further stated that the road was constructed somewhere in the year 1986 and the filing of the writ petition after a long lapse, in the year 2017, demonstrates that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. He further subm.its that the road was constructed on account of the persistence demand of the residents including the peHtitioner and, therefore also, it does not behove upon the petitioner to file this petition belatedly seeking compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has denied the contention and has submitted that there was no volunteer surrenduer of the land either by the late father of the petitioner oro by the other land owners. He submits that no materiCal has been placed on record by the respondents to substantiate this bald contention.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the H documents with the petition.
7. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner/his predecessor in interest has been utilized for the construction of the road in issue. The contention of the State that the land was voluntarily surrendered by the father of the petitioner for the construction of the road is not substantiated by any material on record. No document has been placed on record by the respondent-State to substantiate this fact. .
8. Thus, in the absence of their being any material on record to suggest that the land was voluHntarily surrendered in favour of the Government, obviously, the State cannot shun away from its duty to compensate the land owner for the utilization of his land.
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen numbers of cases has been puleased to hold that the right to property being a constitutionoal right under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India aCnd the owner of
