The state cannot deprive citizens of their property without due process of law or payment of compensation. Pleas of delay, laches, or adverse possession are not maintainable by the state when it has illegally occupied private land and failed to follow statutory acquisition procedures.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 29.11.2021, as passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 27/13 of 2019, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants/ defendants has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2019, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 134/1 of 2015, titled as Paras Ram & another vs. State of H.P. & others, has been affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for possession and mandatory injunction was partly decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for possession and mandatory injunction on 29.09.2015 on the ground that the land comprised in khata/khatoni No. 7/9, khasra No. 103/82, 83, measuring 05-07 bighas, situated at Mauja Gounhta, Sub Tehsil Namhol, District Bilaspur, H.P. is recorded in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs.

3. It is averred by the plaintiffs that in the year 1986, defendant No.3 and Department of PWD planned to construct Rajgarh-Sai-Trivenighat road, which was constructed in the year 2003-2004 and in the year 2011-2012. The defendants occupied the suit land of the plaintiffs without implied and express consent of the plaintiffs. The said construction was raised at the back of the plaintiffs and no permission was sought from them. The construction of the road was opposed by the plaintiffs and even they approached the concerned authorities especially defendant No.3, Executive Engineer, Division No.2, Bilaspur, H.P. but the authorities forcibly constructed the road in order to prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs. On account of the unscientific construction, the defendants destroyed the entire land rendering it waste land and the adjoining land of plaintiffs was also damaged and made useless. Though, the plaintiffs approached the official of the defendants from time to time to assess and make the compensation of the land occupied but no action was taken by the authorities. The acts of the defendants qua the forcible and illegal occupation of the suit land without the consent of the plaintiffs are wrong and illegal. Therefore, it was prayed that the plaintiffs have not been compensated for the land occupied by the defendants as such are entitled to have possession of the suit land by way of decree for possession along with mandatory injunction.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants/State by raising preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability and limitation etc. It was averred by the defendants that the people of village Gounhta-Sai-Nodwa allowed the construction work of the road without any protest. No proposal for acquisition of the land was received because the road was demanded by the villagers. On the belated stage, the plaintiffs approached the Court to get compensation after availing the facilities of the road. Since the road was constructed about 20 years ago, therefore, the suit is liable to dismissed. It was averred in the written statement that no unscientific method was adopted while constructing the road. However, the facilities of transportation was provided to the locals including the plaintiffs irrespective of any expenditure incurred by the plaintiffs. The road was constructed on a popular