Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 16 October, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.93 of 2018
Decided on: 16th October, 2024.
_________________________________________________________________
Rishal Devi & Ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua,
lWhether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Grievance of the petitioners is that the
respondents-State had utilized their lands for constructing
Nadaun-Sujanpur via Bada road, but, petitioners have not
been compensated for the use of their lands. Their lands have
not been acquired in accordance with law.
2. The case set up by the petitioners as urged by
their learned counsel is that the respondents had constructed
Nadaun-Sujanpur via Bada road in 1967-68. The road was
metalled in 1975. For the construction of the aforesaid road,
l
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
respondents also used the lands belonging to the petitioners.
Such utilization of petitioners' lands was without their
consent. No compensation for the lands of the petitioners was
paid to them. It has also been pleaded that for the
construction of the same road, respondents have utilized
certain other parcels of lands. A specific example has been
given of Khasra Nos. 48, 51, 55, 61, 74 and 75/1, measuring
0-26-47 hectares, situated in village Jalari Badiara, Mouza
Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Award No.8
was passed on 29.05.2017, whereunder the above described
land was acquired in accordance with law and compensation
was disbursed to the owners thereof, however, the petitioners
were discriminated despite their lands having been utilized for
the construction of the same very road. Their lands have not
been acquired in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted
that for the construction of Nadaun-Sujanpur road,
respondents-State had declined to initiate land acquisition
proceedings in respect of certain land parcels owned by one
Smt. Vidya Devi in Tikka Jalari Badiara, Mouza Jalari, Teshil
Naduan District Haimrpur, H.P. Smt. Vidya Devi had knocked
the doors of this Court by filing CWP No. 1736 of 2010,
seeking direction to the State to pay compensation for her
land utilized in 1967-68. Writ petition was disposed of on
11.09.2013, with the observations that the matter involved
disputed questions of law and facts for determination of
starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in
the Writ proceedings. Smt. Vidya Devi was granted liberty to
file a civil suit. She instituted Special Leave Petition Nos. 467-
468 of 2020 (Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and Ors)1. Aforesaid SLP was decided on 18.01.2020. The
Hon'ble Apex Court held that in democratic polity governed by
the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of
their property without the sanction of law. The State being a
welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to
itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.
The contention of the state, therein, that the appellant or her
predecessor had orally consented to the acquisition was held
to be baseless. The action of the State in utilizing the land of
the appellant was held to be with complete lack of authority
and legal sanction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
(2020)2 SCC 569
the case of the present petitioners is similar to the case of
Smt. Vidya Devi before the Hon'ble Apex Court. That the
lands of petitioners were utilized for the construction of
same very road that was involved in the case of Smt. Vidya
Devi, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the relief as
granted to Smt. Vidya Devi. Petitioners are also entitled to be
compensated for utilization of their lands. Hence, prayer was
made to direct the respondents-State to initiate the land
acquisition proceedings in accordance with law for the lands
of the petitioners utilized for the construction of the road.
3. The respondents in their reply have not disputed
the factual assertions of the petitioners. Respondents have
not denied in their reply that the lands of the petitioners had
been utilized for the construction of Nadaun-Sujanpur road.
The defence taken in the reply is that the petitioners had
themselves surrendered their lands voluntarily and that they
are barred to claim compensation at this belated stage in view
of their own act, conduct, delay and laches.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered the case file.
4(i) Respondents have not disputed that the lands of
the petitioners have been utilized for the construction of
Nadaun-Sujanpur road.
4(ii) Plea of the respondents that the petitioners had
voluntarily offered their lands for construction of the road in
question without payment of any compensation is belied from
the fact that the Award No.8, was passed on 29.05.2017 with
respect to certain other parcels of land in Village Jalari
Badiara, Tehsil Nadaun, that were utilized for the
construction of the same road. The respondent even
otherwise have not placed on record any document to
demonstrate the consent alleged to have been given by the
petitioners for using their property without payment of
compensation.
4(iii) It is a matter of record that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
Ors1, has held that the State cannot shield itself behind the
ground of delay and laches. There cannot be any limitation
for doing substantial justice as nobody can be deprived of
liberty or property without due process or authorization of
law.
4(iv) It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to a
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in Labdhu Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors2. The
petitioner therein had raised a factual plea that though
certain others, whose lands were utilized for the road, were
paid the compensation, but he was denied the same even
though his land was also utilized for construction of same
road. Road in that case was laid in the year 1995-96. Taking
note of various pronouncements, viz. State of Himachal
Pradesh Vs Umeed Ram Sharma 3; Swaraj Abhiyan(I) vs.
Union of India and ors. 4; Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. 5; D.B. Basnett Vs. Collector
East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr. 6; B.K.
Ravichandra and Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. 7; Sukh
Dutt Ratra & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 8,
the contention of delay and laches raised by the respondents-
State was turned down. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex
Court that the State cannot evade its legal responsibility
towards those from whom private property has been
expropriated, were reiterated. It will be appropriate to extract
CWP No.6581/2021 decided on 28.06.2023
(1986) 2 SCC 68
(2016) 7 SCC 498
(2020) 9 SCC 356
(2020) 4 SCC 572
(2021) 14 SCC 703
(2022) 7 SCC 508
following paragraphs from Labdhu Ram's case (supra):-
"18. In Sukh Dutt Ratra, supra, the appellant's land
had been utilized for construction of road in 1972-73
without initiating any proceedings for acquisition and
without paying any compensation. When the
petitioner filed a writ petition on the basis of relief
granted to other owners whose land was so acquired,
the said Writ petition was dismissed by the High
Court holding that there were disputed questions of
law and fact for determination on the starting point of
limitation, which cannot be adjudicated in the writ
proceeding and the petitioners were given liberty to
approach the Civil Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the said decision
and held that nobody can be deprived of liberty or
property without due process, or authorization of law
and the State has a higher responsibility in
demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of
legality, and had not tarnished the basic principle of
the rule of law.
It held that State, merely on the ground of
delay and laches, cannot evade its legal
responsibility towards those from whom private
property has been expropriated.
It observed that the State was initiating
acquisition proceedings selectively and not in every
case like that of the appellants whose land was
taken, and at every stage it sought to shirk its
responsibility of acquiring land required for public use
in the manner prescribed by law.
It held that the State cannot shield itself behind
the ground of delay and laches in such a situation as
there cannot be a limitation to doing justice.
It also rejected the plea alleged verbal consent
or lack of objection on the ground that no material
was placed on record to substantiate the said plea
and held that the State was unable to produce any
evidence indicating that the land of the appellant had
been taken over or acquired in the manner known to
law, or that it had ever paid any compensation.
It declared that there is no period of limitation
prescribed for the courts to exercise their
constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. It
directed the State to treat the subject land as a
deemed acquisition and disburse compensation to the
appellants therein in terms of similar orders passed
in other cases within four months.
19. In view of the above settled legal position, we
are of the opinion that the stand of the State that it
need not pay any compensation for utilizing the
petitioner's land for the purpose of laying a road
cannot be countenanced and the State is bound to
pay market value compensation to the petitioner for
utilizing his land for the purpose of the road.
20. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with
costs of Rs.10,000/- and a direction is issued to the
respondents to demarcate the land of the petitioner
utilized for the purpose of the road in question within
four weeks, treat it as having been acquired for the
said purpose and pay him the highest amount
towards compensation among compensation under
the awards Annexures P-3 and P-4 with all statutory
benefits under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 within
eight weeks."
In the instant case, the respondents have not
established that the lands were voluntarily donated or given
by the petitioners willingly for construction of the road in
question.
The Award No.8 dated 29.05.2017 was passed in
respect of acquisition of certain other parcels of land utilized
for the construction of the same very road, for which
petitioners' lands have also been utilized. It is not open for
the respondents to discriminate the petitioners. Even
otherwise the case set up by the petitioners is squarely
covered in terms of the decision in Vidya Devi's1 case. Hence,
relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be declined on the
basis of plea of delay and laches. The respondents being a
welfare State has to act in a just and fair manner after
following due process of law.
5. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it
would be appropriate to direct the respondents to carry out
the demarcation of petitioners' lands situated in village Jalari
Badiara, Mouza Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P, in
- 10 -
accordance with law after associating the petitioners, within a
period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. In case
the lands of the petitioners are found to have been utilized for
construction of the road in question, the respondents in that
situation shall initiate the land acquisition proceedings in
respect of the land found to have been utilized for
construction of the road in accordance with law within a
period of eight weeks thereafter and take the same to its
logical conclusion within a period of one year.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
October 16, 2024 Judge
R.Atal
