Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On 20Th September vs Shri Ram & Another on 20 September, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:8973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
RSA No. 31 of 2019
Decided on 20th September, 2024
.
The Secretary, H.P.P.W.D.,
Government of Himachal Pradesh
and another Appellants
Versus
Shri Ram & another ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting?
For the appellants: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy
r Advocate General.
For the respondents: Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this appeal, the appellants-State has
challenged the judgments and decrees passed by the learned
Courts below, in terms whereof, the suit for possession,
permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the
defendants/respondents was decreed by the learned trial Court
by directing the defendants to take steps for the acquisition of
the land of the plaintiffs, which was used for construction of
public road by the defendants and disburse the assessed
compensation and the appeal filed against the said judgment
2024:HHC:8973
and decree passed by the learned trial Court was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this
appeal are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession,
.
permanent and mandatory injunction on the ground that they
were owners in possession of land comprised in Khasra No.14,
khata khatauni No.137/138, khewat No.24, situated in Village
Dhararsani, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. As per
them, defendants constructed Auhar-Kohina road by utilizing
the land of the plaintiffs with their consent and permission.
According to the plaintiffs, a notification for the acquisition of
land was duly issued by the Government, but, thereafter, no
efforts were made by them to compensate the plaintiffs. It was
in these circumstances that they came to the Court. The
defendants, though did not dispute the factum of the utilization
of the land of the plaintiffs for the construction of the road, but,
as per them, the construction was carried out by the defendants
on the request and oral consent of the land owners. The suit
was decreed by the learned trial Court by holding that the
defendants had failed to demonstrate that the land of the
plaintiff was utilized by them on consensual basis. It held that
2024:HHC:8973
admittedly no written consent was produced by the defendants
and it was also a matter of record that notification was issued
for the acquisition of the land, which elapsed on account of the
.
fault of the defendants. In this backdrop, it decreed the suit by
holding that as the road was already in existence and was
being utilized as a public road; therefore, defendants were
directed to take steps for the acquisition of the land as per law
and compensate the land owners. In appeal, these findings
were upheld. Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal.
3. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General
and having gone through the judgments and decrees passed
by the leaned Courts below, this Court is of the considered view
that there is no merit in the present appeal and further no
substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
4. There are concurrent findings returned by the
learned Courts below that the land of the plaintiffs was utilized
for the purpose of the construction of the road in issue. The
factum of the utilization of the land in fact has been admitted by
the defendants. The stand of the defendants that this was done
on the request and oral request of the plaintiffs has not been
2024:HHC:8973
substantiated by them by bringing on record any cogent
evidence. Record also demonstrates that a notification was
issued for the acquisition of the land, but the same was not
.
taken to its logical conclusion and it lapsed. It is settled law that
the State cannot be allowed to utilize the property of an
individual without compensating him in accordance with law. It
fact, none can be allowed to utilize the property of the other
except in accordance with law. The construction of the road be
it for any purpose, without the consent of the land owners,
cannot be legitimized simply on the plea that the act of the
State is in larger public interest. Compensation of the land
owner for the utilization of his land, for the construction of even
a public road, is a must, until and unless the land owner parts
away with the land in favour of the Department concerned in a
legally acceptable manner.
5. Accordingly, as the adjudications made by both the
learned Courts below are pure and simple adjudications on
facts which are not perverse and clearly borne out from the
record and further as this Court does not finds any substantial
question of law involved in this appeal, the same is dismissed.
2024:HHC:8973
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
.
Judge
September 20, 2024
(Vinod)
r to
2024:HHC:8973
000000
.
