IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2103 of 2020 th Decided on 12 December 2025 Prem Chand and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has hprayed for the following relief:-

g “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed throughout with cost and the i respondents may kindly be directed to initiate the H acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land of the petitioner utilized for the construction of road as envisaged under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in a time bound manner and pay the compensation to the petitioner and other benefits including payment of damages of the land illegally utilized since 1984 till the compensation is awarded in his favour after summoning the record of the respondents and justice be done.”

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their land, details whereof are given in the petition has been utili.zed for the construction of Jainagar to Ookhu, Tehsil Nalagharh, District Solan, Road, but they have nHot been adequately compensated as the land has been utilized without acquiring the same in accordance with law.

3. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondents-State demonstrate that the factum of the land having been utilized by the respondent is unot under dispute, but, according to the State, when the rooad was constructed in the year 2002, neither the petitionCers nor any other land owners raised objection with regard to the construction of the road, nor anyone demanded compensation. It is further the stand of the respondents that all the villagers surrendered their land in favour of the State for the H construction of the said road.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

5. As it is not in dispute that the land of the petitioners has been utilized for the purpose of the construction of th.e road and the State is not in a position to furnish any evidence to the effect that the road was constructed on thHe voluntarily handing over of the land by the land owners to the State, the petitioners have to be compensated for the utilization of their land for the construction of the road.

6. 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 the property cannot be deprived thereof without compensation in accordance with.

7. Even State cannot use the property of a private individual for a public purpose also without compensating the H private individual in accordance with law.

8. Therefore, in the light of the fact that there is no dispute about the land of the petitioners having been utilized for the purpose of the construction of the road and there being no evidence that the land was voluntarily allowed to be used by the petitioners for the said purpose, this petition is allowed.

Respondents are directed to acquire the land of the petitioners in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be entitled. to the rate, which was prevailing as in the year 2002, when the road was constructed by taking the date oHf acquisition to be 01.01.2002. Interest will be payable to the petitioners only from the date of the filing of the writ petition.

9. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge DecemCber 12, 2025 (Vinod)