The court emphasized the constitutional protection of property rights, requiring just compensation for land used for public construction, regardless of delays in claims.

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

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1665/2024 titled Ram Krishan and others Vs. State of HP and others dated 10.12.2024, whereby directions have been issued to initiate acquisition proceedings, keeping in view the fact that their land had been utilized for the purpose of the construction of the road, namely “Shat to Jalugran” falling in khasra No. 642 and 825 situated in Mohal Jallu, sub-Tehsil Jari, District Kullu, HP., within four weeks under the relevant Statute vis-a-vis the land of the petitioners and award just and fair compensation, 2. The learned Single Judge noticed that the plea of the writ petitioners was that the land had been utilized in the year 1999 for the said purpofse but the acquisition proceedings had not been initiated. Therefore, while placing reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court 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, 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, and taking the support of Article 300A of the HConstitution the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the land owners cannot be deprived of their right of property save by the authority of law.

3. The stand of the State as such that the land owners remained silent for more than 25 years and the writ petition was barred by delay and laches and there was implied consent as such of the land owners, was rejected. It had further been submitted that the road in question had been constructed on the persistent demand of the residents of the area without any claim for compensation.

4. Counsel for the State has sought to argue on the same lines. However, we are not in agreement with the said defence which had been set up. Thfe specific plea as such was that the compensation had been paid qua other land, namely, “Phati Jalu” to petitioners No. 1 and 2 but the respondents had not acquired the land in khasra Nos. 642 and 825 falling in Mohal Jalu. It is also the case as such that Award No. 4 of 2009 had been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and compensation had been paid to the other land owners on account of the Notification dated 07.01.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure P-2).

H5. Perusal of the said Notification would go on to show that the same was for construction of the road from “Shat to Jallugran” for the area measuring 5-14-17 bighas and resultantly the land owners as such had set up the claim.

6. The stand of the State in the reply by the pleadings as such was that the petitioners had never raised any objection for construction of the road and voluntarily surrendered the same and hence, they were beneficiary of the road connectivity. However, the acquisition vide Award No. 4 of 2009 was admitted on the ground that the said land owners had resisted the construction of the road. It is thus apparent that for the same purpfose, similarly situated persons have been granted benefit of compensation for their land on account of procedure prescribed under the law which was utilized for the construction of the road but the writ petitioners, on the other hand, are similarly situated, did not get the same benefit. It is in such circumstances, they had approached this Court by filing the writ petition which has thus been rightly allowed. In case, the petitioners had voluntarily submitted to give their land, there should have been something in writing as such which His not the plea of the State, whereas on the other hand, the other land owner