Himachal Pradesh HC Affirms Citizen's Right to Compensation for Land Acquisition Under PMGSY, Dismissing State's Appeal Based on 'Verbal Consent' and Delay

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Landowner's Right to Compensation Despite Delay in PMGSY Road Project Case

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh – In a significant judgment delivered on March 1, 2025, a division bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh , comprising Chief Justice G. S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma , dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against a single judge's order mandating compensation to a landowner, Charan Dass , for the acquisition of his land for road construction under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY). The court firmly reiterated the constitutional right to property and held that the State cannot deprive a citizen of their land without due process of law and fair compensation, even under the PMGSY scheme.

Case Overview: Land Acquisition and Compensation Dispute

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Charan Dass , seeking directions to the State authorities to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation for his land utilized for the construction of the Mahota-Bagshar road under PMGSY. The State, in its defense, argued that the road was constructed with the "verbal consent" of Charan Dass and that PMGSY did not provide for land acquisition or compensation. The State also raised the issue of delay and laches, as the road construction was completed in 2009, and the petition was filed in 2022.

State's Arguments Rejected: Verbal Consent and PMGSY Scheme

The division bench comprehensively refuted the State's contentions. The court emphasized that the State failed to produce any evidence of written consent from Charan Dass , reiterating that "oral consent cannot be presumed," especially in cases involving individuals from rural areas. Citing a Full Bench decision of the same High Court in Shankar Dass alias Shankru versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , the court highlighted the necessity of written consent for land acquisition.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the State's argument that PMGSY guidelines absolve them of the responsibility to compensate landowners. Referencing another Full Bench judgment of the High Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Sita Ram Sharma , which was also upheld by the Supreme Court, the bench clarified that while PMGSY may not explicitly provide for land acquisition, it does not authorize the State to take possession of private land without consent or compensation. The judgment underscored that PMGSY guidelines themselves envision land acquisition by the State, either through its own resources or by obtaining voluntary donations, but not through forceful dispossession without compensation.

Constitutional Right to Property Prevails Over Delay and Laches

The High Court decisively rejected the State's plea of delay and laches. Drawing upon a series of Supreme Court judgments, including Tukaram Kana Joshi and others versus Maharashtra Industrial development Corporation and others , Vidya Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , the court affirmed that delay cannot defeat the fundamental right to property, now a constitutional right under Article 300-A.

The judgment quoted extensively from Vidya Devi , emphasizing that "Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court." The court held that the State's action of forcibly dispossessing Charan Dass of his property without legal sanction constituted a "continuing cause of action" and "shocked the conscience" of the court.

Excerpts from the Judgment:

> "Even the whimsical and anarchical manner of depriving the landowner-writ petitioner of property and right of compensation shocks the conscience of this Court. Accordingly, the judgment passed by Learned Single Judge after noticing the material on record and the factual and the legal aspects herein, does not require any interference in instant appeal."

> "The State Authorities cannot by way of an executive fiat divest the writ petitioner- Charan Dass of his private land(s), without his consent and without paying compensation and by utilizing such land for construction of road in question, and such expropriation of property, by the State, without any sanction of law visits a landowner with civil consequences, depriving him of the right to use his own property and action confers a continuing cause to a landowner to claim compensation."

Parity in Justice: Compensation for All Affected Landowners

A crucial aspect highlighted by the court was the discriminatory treatment meted out to Charan Dass . The judgment pointed out that neighboring landowners, Bhoop Ram and Neem Chand , whose lands were also utilized for the same road, had already been compensated following earlier court orders. The court found "no reason as to why the writ petitioner be not held entitled for similar compensation," emphasizing the principle of equal treatment under the law.

Conclusion and Directions

Dismissing the State's appeal, the High Court upheld the single judge's order, directing the State authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings and award compensation to Charan Dass , mirroring the compensation provided to Bhoop Ram and Neem Chand . The court set a one-year deadline for completing the entire process.

In a stern concluding note, the bench expressed its dismay at the State's repeated filing of appeals in similar cases despite settled legal principles, hinting at the imposition of exemplary costs in the future for such "sorry state of affairs" and urging the State to adhere to its litigation policy in "letter and spirit."

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to protecting citizens' property rights against arbitrary state actions and ensures that landowners are not denied their rightful compensation even in infrastructure development projects under schemes like PMGSY.