The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Delhi High Court Act, laying a challenge to the judgment dated 22.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to pay compensation to the respondent. The Court observed that though it has been claimed by the appellants/Department that there was consent on the part of the petitioner for the utilization of the land for the construction of the road, there is no documentary evidence.
Brief Facts:
Vide notification dated 01.06.2001 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land owned by predecessor-in-interest of respondent, came to be included for acquisition proposed to be done by the appellants/ Department for construction of road in question. Though appellants/Department utilized the land of the petitioner (respondent herein) for the construction of the road in question, interestingly, notification issued for the acquisition was allowed to lapse, and as a result thereof, no compensation ever came to be paid to the petitioner qua his land used for construction of the road in question.
Learned Single Judge having taken note of pleadings adduced on record by both parties allowed the petition and directed the appellants/Department to pay compensation to the respondent/ petitioner in accordance with law after acquiring the land in question within a period of six weeks. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants/Department has approached this Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing impugned judgment, failed to take note of the fact that the claim being raised after a considerable period of 28 years without there being any explanation of such a long and inordinate delay, could not have been entertained. He further argued that otherwise also, a matter involving a disputed question of facts and law could not have been decided in the writ petition, rather for that purpose, the respondent/petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court.
The Court noted that the land of the petitioner was utilized for the construction of the road detailed herein above in the year 1995, but at no point in time, acquisition proceedings were initiated, as a result of which, no compensation was paid to the respondent. Though it has been claimed by the appellants/Department that there was consent on the part of the petitioner for the utilization of the land for the construction of the road, there is no documentary evidence.
The Court observed that landowners cannot be deprived of the property without due process of law and the ground raised by the appellants/Department that the land of the respondent was made available with his consent is of no consequence. The Court said that the plea of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is liable to be rejected, especially when it is not in dispute that the petitioner is suffering continuous loss coupled with the fact that he repeatedly requested the authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which otherwise appears to have been passed on proper appreciation of facts as well as law on the point.
Case Title: State of H.P. & Ors. v Hari Ram
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Sharma
Case no.: LPA No. 242 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Ramakant Sharma
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Hitesh Thakur
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
