Date Of Decision: 29.10.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 15958 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 29.10.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 29 October, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

                                                                        2024:HHC:10740




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                             CWP No. 2583 of 2024
                                      Date of Decision: 29.10.2024
______________________________________________________________
Madan Lal & Anr.                                                   .........Petitioners

                                     Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & others                                .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner:          Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For the respondents:         Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Vishal
                             Panwar, & Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocates
                             General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Since despite there being utilization of the land of the petitioners

for construction of "Luharghat to Ramshehar via Bhiunkari road", petitioners

have not been paid compensation by the department after acquiring the land,

they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main reliefs:

"(a) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed throughout with cost and the respondents may kindly be directed to initiate the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land of the petitioners utilized for the construction of road from Luharghat to Ramshehar via Bhiunkari, Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan, HP, as envisaged under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in a time bound manner and pay the compensation to the petitioners and other benefits including payment of damages of the land illegally utilized 2 2024:HHC:10740

since 1990 till the compensation is awarded in their favour after summoning the record of the respondents and justice be done."

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerges from the record are

that the land of the petitioner comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 3min/3min,

bearing Khasra Nos. 240 and 245, measuring 1-12 bighas and 7-11 bighas,

situate at Mohal Taked, Patwar Circle Saur, Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan ,

Himachal Pradesh, came to be utilized for the construction of "Luharghat to

Ramshehar via Bhiunkari road" in the year 1990, but since respondents failed

to initiate acquisition proceedings and no compensation was paid to the

petitioners, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings,

seeking therein direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings

and thereafter pay compensation.

3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,

respondents have filed the reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed herein

above, are not in dispute, rather stand duly admitted. Precisely, the claim of

the petitioners, as has been raised in the petition, has been refuted by the

respondents on the ground that present petition is barred by delay and laches

and land was made available by the petitioners of their own volition with clear-

cut understanding that they would not seek any compensation. Besides

above, it has also been averred in the reply filed by the respondents that road

in question was constructed on the persistent demand of the residents of the

area, with clear cut understanding that they shall claim no compensation.

3 2024:HHC:10740

4. Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, learned representing the petitioners,

vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that land of the petitioners

stands utilized for construction of the road in question, respondents cannot

escape from its liability to pay the compensation after initiation of the

proceedings in terms of provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. He

further submitted that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that consent, if

any, was ever given by the petitioners to provide the land free of cost. While

placing heavy reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in 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,

Mr. Bhardwaj, argued that plea of delay and laches cannot be raised in the

case of continuing cause of action, especially, in land acquisition matters. He

also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 18.7.2023, passed by this Court

in CWP No. 8647 of 2022, titled Sh. Ramanand and Ors v. State of

Himachal Pradesh and Ors, whereby this Court, while placing reliance upon

aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, rejected the plea of

delay and laches raised by the respondents-State and directed respondents to

initiate acquisition proceedings.

5. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while

opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently argued that

though there is no written document suggestive of the fact that land used for

construction of the road was made available voluntarily by the petitioners with

clear cut understanding that he shall not claim any compensation, but 4 2024:HHC:10740

otherwise also, since petitioners remained silent for more than three decades,

it can be safely inferred that there was an implied consent on the part of the

petitioners for construction of the road.

6. While making this Court peruse judgment passed by this Court in

Shankar Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 1966 of 2010,

decided on 2.3.2013, learned Additional Advocate General contended that

appropriate remedy for redressal of grievance as raised in the instant petition

is to approach the civil court by way of civil suit. He also placed reliance upon

the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v.

Digambar, 1995 (4) SCC 683, to state that claim being highly stale deserves

outright rejection.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

material available on record, this Court finds that land of the petitioners were

utilized for construction of the road detailed herein above in the year 1990, but

at no point of time, acquisition proceedings were initiated, as a result of which,

no compensation was paid to the petitioners. Though, it has been claimed by

the respondents that there was consent on the part of the petitioners for

utilization of the land for construction of the road, but there is no documentary

evidence, if any, available on record.

8. Though, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to

carve out a case that there was an oral consent, but such plea of him cannot

be accepted simply on the ground that petition at hand has been filed after

three decades of use of the land. Otherwise also, plea of delay and laches 5 2024:HHC:10740

raised by the respondents is not available to them in light of judgments passed

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidya Devi and Sukh Dutt Ratra's cases supra.

In the aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that

plea of 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, it

can always condone the delay to do the substantial justice. Most importantly,

in the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that condonation of delay is a

matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and

reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case and while doing so, there

is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their

constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. It has been further held that

forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following

due process of law, is violative of both their human right and constitutional

right under Article 300-A.

9. Crux of the aforesaid judgments is that land owners cannot be

deprived of the property without due process of law, if it is so, ground raised by

the respondents that land of the petitioners were made available with his

consent is of no consequence, rather this Court having taken note of the fact

that land of the petitioners already stand utilized, is compelled to agree with

the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are

entitled to compensation qua the land used by the respondents for

construction of the road.

6 2024:HHC:10740

10. Though, in the case at hand, learned Additional Advocate

General invited attention of this court to judgment dated 24.2.2023, passed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1278 of 2023, State of Himachal

Pradesh and Ors V. Rajiv and Anr., but having perused the same, this Court

finds that same is not applicable in the case at hand because in the aforesaid

judgment, it has been nowhere stated/ruled that claim raised for acquisition

and compensation after delay cannot be considered, rather in the aforesaid

case, claimants were not held entitled to the interest under the Land

Acquisition Act from the date of notification under Section 4 till the filing of the

writ petition. Since in the case at hand, no notification under Section 4 has

been issued till date, ruling, if any, given in the aforesaid judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court has no application in the present case. In the instant

case, land of the petitioner has been utilized for construction of the road in

1972-73 without paying compensation. Despite there being issuance of legal

notice, respondents have failed to initiate acquisition proceedings, as a result

of which, great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. At this stage, it

would be apt to take note of the following paras of the judgment passed in

Vidya Devi (supra):-

"10.1. The Appellant was forcibly expropriated of her property in 1967, when the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of the Constitution.

Article 31 guaranteed the right to private property 1, which could not be deprived without due process of law and upon just and fair compensation.

7 2024:HHC:10740

10.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right 2 in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred in that Article.

To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution.

Reliance is placed on the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai4, wherein this Court held that:

" 6. ... Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid." (emphasis supplied) In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy5, this Court held that:

"21. If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed." (emphasis supplied)

In Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P.& Ors., this Court recognized the right to property as a basic human right in the following words:

"30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property."Property must be secured, else liberty cannot subsist" was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed bed which must be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists." (emphasis supplied)

In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat,7 this Court held as follows :

"48. ...In other words, Article 300A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law.

8 2024:HHC:10740

Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation." (emphasis supplied)

10.3. In this case, the Appellant could not have been forcibly dispossessed of her property without any legal sanction, and without following due process of law, and depriving her payment of just compensation, being a fundamental right on the date of forcible dispossession in 1967.

10.4. The contention of the State that the Appellant or her predecessors had "orally" consented to the acquisition is completely baseless. We find complete lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the Appellant of her property by the State.

10.5. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors.8 wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. 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.

This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multifaceted dimension.

10.6. We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the High Court, that since it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to "adverse" possession. The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case.

10.7. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the Appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the 9 2024:HHC:10740

circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.

In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional Court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it.

In Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors., this Court while dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows :

"There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether. Functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the Appellants without any sanction of law. The Appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode."

(emphasis supplied)"

11. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Sukhdutt Ratra's cases (supra).

"23. This Court, in Vidya Devi (supra) facing an almost identical set of facts and circumstances - rejected the contention of 'oral' consent to be baseless and outlined the responsibility of the State:

"12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn., wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. 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.

10 2024:HHC:10740

12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multifaceted dimension."

24. And with regards to the contention of delay and laches, this court went on to hold:

"12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. 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. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.

12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it.

25. Concluding that the forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative22 of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A, this court allowed the appeal. We find that the approach taken by this court in Vidya Devi (supra) is squarely applicable to the nearly identical facts before us in the present case.

26. In view of the above discussion, in view of this court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution, the State is hereby directed to treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants in the same terms as the order of the reference court dated 04.10.2005 in Land Ref. Petition No. 10-LAC/4 of 2004 (and consolidated matters). The Respondent-State is directed, consequently to ensure that the appropriate Land Acquisition Collector computes the compensation, and disburses it to the appellants, within four months from today. The appellants would also be entitled to consequential benefits of solatium, and interest on all sums payable under law w.e.f 16.10.2001 (i.e. 11 2024:HHC:10740

date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act), till the date of the impugned judgment, i.e. 12.09.2013."

12. In the aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically

held that contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the

appellant in moving the Court is liable to be rejected especially when it is not in

dispute that petitioners are suffering continuous loss coupled with the fact that

they repeatedly requested the authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings.

13. In case titled, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram

Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that entire State of

Himachal Pradesh is a hilly area and without workable roads, no

communication is possible; every person is entitled to life as enjoined in Article

21 of the Constitution of India; every person has right under Article 19 (1) (b)

of the Constitution of India to move freely, throughout the territory of India; for

the residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life itself. Stand taken

by the respondents that there was a policy for providing roads on demand of

residents as a favour to them on conditions that they would not claim

compensation, cannot be sustained because such stand is violative of Article

300A of the Constitution of India

14. In case titled Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, 2020 9 SCC 356, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that

though right to property is not a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional

right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also a human right; in

view of the mandate of Article 300A, no person can be deprived of his property

save by the authority of law. No doubt, State possesses the power to take or 12 2024:HHC:10740

control the property of the owner of the land for the benefit of public, but at the

same time, it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation.

15. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein

above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the

present petition and accordingly same is allowed with direction to the

respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the

relevant statute vis-à-vis land of the petitioners and thereafter, just and fair

compensation qua the same be awarded to the petitioners. Since petitioners

have been fighting for their rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes

and trusts that authority concerned would do the needful expeditiously,

preferably, within four months. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is

disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

October 29, 2024                                    (Sandeep Sharma),
      (sunil)                                             Judge