The State cannot utilize private land for public purposes without following due process of law and paying compensation, as the right to property under Article 300-A is a constitutional right and such claims constitute a continuing cause of action, regardless of pleas of delay or oral donation.

G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral)

Whether approved for reporting?

Consideration in the present appeal is sought to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2071 of 2021, titled as Pyare Lal vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 27.11.2024, whereby on account of utilization of the land of the petitioner for the construction of the road, namely, ‘Jawra Kainchi to Dhrial from Bathalag to Palog’, the directions were issued to initiate acquisition proceedings under the relevant statute vis-a-vis land of the petitioner within four weeks, on account of the fact that the same had been utilised for the public purpose.

2. The learned Single Judge relied upon various judgments to grant the said relief i.e. Vidya Devi v. State of HP and Ors. , (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra and Anr v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors , (2022) 7 SCC 508. While rejecting the claim of the State, which was based on State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar , 1995 (4) SCC 683, the learned Single Judge placed reliance upon the provisions of Article 300-A and the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma (1988) 2 SCC 68 and Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 356, the aforesaid directions have been issued.

3. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the writ petition waCs filed at a belated stage, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not correct in issuing necessary directions.

4. h We have gone through the writ record. Perusal of the sagme would go on to show that the specific case as such of the writ petitioner was that he is co-owner of the land situated at Mohal Dhrial, Hadbast No. 485, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh and the road had been constructed in the year, 2010 by using public fund and no compensation was granted. The civil suit had been filed by one Ghanshyam Verma against him on the ground that he had started construction of the house and obstructed the road as such by stacking material. It has also been mentioned that CWP No. 88 of 2020 titled as Dinesh Thakur vs. State of H.P. & Ors., was decided on 21.09.2020 (Annexure P-4) in which he was arrayed as respondent No. 5 and directions were issued as such to remove the material put on the road and clear the obstruction within the stipulated period of three days and liberty was given in case he proves to be the owner of the property, to file necessary petition/application for damages etc. befofre competent Court. The relevant portion reads as under:-

“5. In view of the above, we dispose this petition with a direction to respondent No.5 to clear the road within three days from 22.09.2020 and report compliance to the Registry of this Court. Respondent-Government is also directed to see that respondent No.5 has cleared the obstruction within the time stipulated. However, liberty is reseCrved to the petitioner to file memo in case respondent No.5 fails to clear the obstruction. Liberty is also reserved to respondent No.5, in case he proves to be the owner of the property on which the respondent-4 Government has laid road, to file necessary petition/application for damages etc. before competent Court.”

5. Apparently, in such circumstances, the writ petition thereafter came to be filed in the year, 2021 and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no delay as such as the legal proceedings were already pending. The stand of the State is self defeating that the