The State cannot forcibly dispossess a citizen of private property without adhering to due process of law. A welfare State is prohibited from pleading adverse possession or delay/laches to evade its constitutional obligation to pay just compensation for land acquired for public use.

Coram:

Whether approved for reporting?, (Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?)

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. dated 01.07.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellants has been dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. dated 30.03.2024 in Civil Suit No. 168 of 2015, have been affirmed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff Shyam Lal (since deceased through LRs.) filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction over land comprised in Khewat No. 220, Khatauni No. 254, bearing Khasra No. 672, measuring 00-02-76 hectares, situated at Mohal Nawahi, Hadbast No. 368, Illaqua Suranga, Tehsil Sarkagbat Distt. Mandi (HP). It is averre d that the suit land prior to settlement operation, which took place in the area concerned in the year of 1968-1969, comprised in Khata Khatauni No.80 min/183 bearing Khasra No. 494 (old) corresponding to Khasrau No. 657 (new), land measuring 00-02-76 hectare and tohereafter in consolidation operation which effected in thCe year 1990-1991, the suit land carved in Khata Khatauni No. 190/228 bearing Khasra No. 657 (old) corresponding to Khasra No. 672 (new), land measuring 00-02-76 hectare, Nakal Missal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid, Mouza Nabahi/368 and Nakal Missal Hakiyat consolidation of the year 1993-94 of Mauza Nabahi Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., was jointly owned by plaintiff alongwith proforma defendants and in possession of proforma defendants No. 7 & 8 in the revenue record.

3. It is averred that the suit land before the settlement operation was in joint ownership and possession of predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff as well as of proforma defendants and after their death the property was inherited by plaintiff alongwith proforma defendants or their predecessor-in-interest to the extent of their entitled share respectively.

4. It is further submitted that the department of HPPWD had constructed a road nam ely “Ghumarwin to Sarkaghat” through the suit land and when the respondents/plaintiffs objected to the same, assurance was given to the plaintiffs that they shall be duly compensated on account of utilization ouf the suit land and it is only on their assurance that theo plaintiffs permitted the officials of the State to raise the cConstruction of the road over the suit land. In the revenue record, classification of the land has been depicted as “gair mumkin road”. Since the defendants have utilized the land of the plaintiffs without adopting due process of law including payment of amount, therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit to declare their rights of due compensation qua the suit land.

5. As per the averments as made in the plaint the cause of action arose to the plaintiffs to file suit firstly on 29.04.2008 and thereafter on 07.12.2011 when the suit land was not found to have been mentioned in the Notification as issued by the State under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiffs were under impression that on account of the promises as made by the officials of the defendants, the suit land shall be acquired and compensation shall be duly paid to the affected parties. Therefore, the suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiffs agains t the defendants.

6. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, mis-joinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties, suppression of facts eutc. It was admitted that road namely “Ghumarwin-Sarkaoghat” was constructed in the year 1955-1960. It was Caverred that the road was constructed by the Public Works Department after complying with the codal formalities which were required for t