Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. & Others vs Basti Ram & Another on 20 September, 2024
Author: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
( 2024:HHC:9017-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA Nos.289, 290 & 291 of 2024
Reserved on:11.09.2024
.
Pronounced on:20.09.2024
LPA No.289 of 2024
State of H.P. & Others ...Appellants
Versus
Basti Ram & Another ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
LPA No.290 of 2024
State of H.P. & Others ...Appellants
Versus
Sarup Lal Upadhya ...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
LPA No.291 of 2024
State of H.P. & Others ...Appellants
Versus
Prashant Gupta ...Respondent
__________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the appellants : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
For the respondents : Nemo.
For the appellants : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate
General.
For the respondent : Nemo.
( 2024:HHC:9017-DB )
For the appellants : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate
General.
For the respondent : Nemo.
.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.
CMP(M) Nos.1237, 1256 & 1291 of 2024
Applications for condonation of delay are allowed, since the same
are not opposed.
LPA Nos.289, 290 & 291 of 2024
In all these cases, the land of the respondents had been utilized by
the appellants for constructing roads without acquiring the same and
without paying any compensation to the respondents.
2. Therefore, the respondents approached this Court and sought
directions to the appellants to acquire their lands and pay them
compensation in accordance with law in a time bound manner.
3. The appellants sought to oppose grant of relief to the respondents
on the ground of delay and laches, and also on the pretext that while the
road was being constructed, the respondents had not raised any
objection, but had voluntarily donated the land for construction of the
road.
4. The learned Single rejected the contentions of the appellants/State
by placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vidya
( 2024:HHC:9017-DB )
Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others1, and Sukh Dutt Ratra
vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others2, wherein, the Supreme Court
had held that the plea of delay and laches cannot be raised in the case of
.
a continuing cause of action, especially in land acquisition matters,
where acts of the State shock the conscience of the Court; and that to
forcibly dispossess a person of his private property without following
due process of law, would be violative of a "Human Right" and also a
"Constitutional Right" under Article 300A of the Constitution of India;
and the plea of oral consent to the acquisition has no legal sanction and
cannot be countenanced.
5. We completely agree with the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgments and find no merit in the appeals.
Accordingly, all these appeals are dismissed. No costs.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
Chief Justice
(Satyen Vaidya)
September 20, 2024 Judge
(Yashwant)
(2020) 2 SCC 569
(2022) 7 SCC 508
