Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Saira Bibi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 7 July, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 10781 of 2024
Decided on 07th July 2025
.
Smt. Saira Bibi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate, vice
Ms. Anjana Khan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter
alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Writ in the nature of Mandamus may
kindly be issued directing the respondents to
calculate and pay the amount of compensation as
per market price/value prevailing nowadays to the
Extent of 00-10-00 biswas of land, 00-07-00 biswa
from comprised in Khata Khatouni No.244/266,
Khasra No 658, Measuring 02-11-15 Bighas and
00-03-00 biswa from Khata Khatouni No. 260/259.
Khasra No. 1470/665, Measuring 00-06-04 situated
at Mohal Dugrain, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District
Mandi utilized for the purpose of road construction
Kanaid-Dinak road.
ii) To acquire the land or the takeover of the land
00-10-00 biswa, 00-07-00 from comprised in Khata
Khatouni No 244/266, Khasra No 658, Measuring
02-11-15 Bighas and 00-03-00 from Khata Khatouni
No. 260/259. Khasra No. 1470/665, Measuring 00-
.
06-04 situated at Mohal Dugrain, Tehsil Sunder
Nagar, District Mandi to the Extent of 00-10-00
biswas for the purpose of road may kindly be
treated as deemed acquisition and to pay all the
statutory benefits under the land Acquisition Act,
1894."
2. The case of the petitioner is that the land, details
whereof are given in the writ petition, has been utilized by the
State for the purpose of the construction of a road without
compensating the petitioner. Details of the land are given in
Para-3 of the writ petition, which is stated to be earlier owned
by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, who thereafter
has inherited the property. The land is stated to have been
utilized for the purpose of the construction of Kanaid-Dinak
Road, which construction was completed as per the petitioner
in the 2009-10.
3. The reply of the respondents is to the effect that the
road was constructed on the request of the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as well as the other
villagers to provide them the road connectivity and as the
construction was carried in the larger interest of the public by
spending money and as the petition has been filed after
inordinate delay of 15 years, the petitioner is not entitled for any
.
relief.
4. In rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the stand
taken in the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as
also learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully
gone through the pleadings.
6. It is not in dispute that the land of the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was utilized by the
State for the purpose of the construction of the land. Though,
the State has taken the plea that the land was constructed on
the request of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and
other land owners, however, save and except these bald
assertions made in the writ petition, there is no material placed
on record by the respondents-State from where this fact can be
substantiated. There is no gift deed or any other holding out
expressly made by the predecessor-in-interest or other villagers
that the land was being parted away by the land owners
voluntarily with the express condition that they shall not be
claiming any compensation in lieu of the same being utilized for
the purpose of the construction of the road.
.
7. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the State has
utilized the land of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner,
this petition is disposed of with the direction that as the
utilization thereof was without any consent of the land owner;
let the same be acquired in accordance with law and
compensation thereof be paid to the land owner/successor-in-
interest of the then land owner. This direction is being passed
by the Court in the light of the fact that Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in umpteen numbers of cases has been pleased to hold
that none can be allowed to use the land of the other without
compensating the owner in accordance with law and, more so,
the State which cannot be permitted to utilize the land of a
private individual, even for public purpose without
compensating the private individual. Taking into consideration
the fact that the land was utilized some time ago as from the
date when the petitioner has filed this writ petition and as per
the averments made in the writ petition, the construction was
completed somewhere in between the year 2009-10, taking into
consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil No.1278 of 2023, titled State of Himachal Pradesh
.
and others versus Rajeev and another, this Court holds that the
deemed date of acquisition for the present case shall be
01.01.2010. The land owners shall be entitled for compensation
construing the market price of the land in question utilized by
the State for the construction of the road as on 01.01.2010.
This will be alongwith other statutory benefits, however,
excluding the interest from 01.01.2010 upto to the date of the
filing of the writ petition in this Court.
8. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 07, 2025
(Vinod)
