30Th August vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 30 August, 2024

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 30Th August vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 30 August, 2024

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

2024:HHC:7647-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.6266 of 2020
Decided on: 30th August, 2024
_________________________________________________________________

.

    Tara Chand & Ors.                                                       ....Petitioners





                                       Versus
    State of H.P. & Ors.                                                 ...Respondents

_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

1 Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners:

                       r                   Mr. Ravi Tanta, Advocate.

    For the respondents:                   Ms. Y.P.S.Dhaulta and Mr. L.N.
                                           Sharma,    Additional Advocates

                                           General.


    Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

CMP No. 11305 of 2023 & CMP No.14726 of 2024

Allowed and disposed of.

CWP No.6266 of 2020

With consent of learned counsel for the parties,

matter is taken up for hearing at this stage.

2. Petitioners’ seek a direction to the respondents to

acquire their land comprised in (i) Khewat No. 1, Khatauni

No.1, Khasra No. 165, measuring 00-25-36 hectares, (ii)

Khewat No. 1, Khatauni No.17, Khasra No. 166, measuring
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

::: Downloaded on – 30/08/2024 20:36:35 :::CIS

-2- 2024:HHC:7647-DB

00-07-70 hectares, and (iii) Khewat No. 1, Khatauni No.1,

Khasra No. 167, measuring 04-92-02 hectares; all land

parcels situated in Patwar Circle Badhawani, Mohal

.

Shalagra, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.

3(i). The facts projected by the petitioners are that:-

3(i)(a) Petitioners are co-owners in possession of the

above described land.

3(i)(b) Respondents started construction of Hira

Nagar -Dhamoon road in the year 1988 and improved it

further during the year 1995-96. Petitioners’ above described

lands were also utilized for construction of the aforesaid road.

3(i)(c) Notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act (the Act in short) was issued by the

respondents on 23.11.2000. Various parcels of land in

villages Badhawani and Shalagra were included in the

Notification issued on 23.11.2020 under Section 4 of the of

the Act. The subject land, owned by the petitioners in village

Shalagra, was also within the purview of Notification dated

23.11.2000. However, notification was not taken to its logical

conclusion and it lapsed.

3(i)(d) Respondents issued another Notification under

::: Downloaded on – 30/08/2024 20:36:35 :::CIS

-3- 2024:HHC:7647-DB

Section 4 of the Act on 12.06.2006 (Annexure P-2). The above

described land parcels owned by the petitioners were part of

this Notification as well. Even this Notification was also

.

allowed to lapse by the respondents.

3(i)(e) It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that

respondents thereafter though completed the land acquisition

proceedings qua several other land parcels which were part of

Section 4 Notification issued on 23.11.2000 & 12.06.2006,

respectively, and land owners, in view of such Notifications

had been duly compensated after culmination of the

acquisition proceedings, but the present petitioners had been

denied the compensation. The grievance of the petitioners is

that the respondents have utilized their lands for

construction of Hira Nagar-Dhamoon road, however, they

have not been compensated.

3(ii) Respondents No. 1 to 3 in their joint reply have

not disputed the factual position asserted by the petitioners.

It has been admitted that the Hira Nagar-Dhamoon road was

constructed by the respondents during the year 1988 and

further improved during the year 1995-96. It has also been

admitted that the subject land owned by the petitioners, has

::: Downloaded on – 30/08/2024 20:36:35 :::CIS

-4- 2024:HHC:7647-DB

been utilized for construction of the aforesaid road. It has

also been admitted that the land belonging to several other

land owners, which was utilized for construction of Hira

.

Nagar-Dhamoon road, had been duly acquired prior to 1997

and compensation was paid the land owners at the market

value prevailing at that time. The respondents have

primarily refuted the claim of the petitioners on the ground of

delay and laches.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated

the pleadings in the writ petition and placed reliance upon

the decisions, rendered in Delhi Development Authority

Vs. Shakuntla Devi and others2; Lucknow Development

Authority Vs. Mehni Hasan (deceased) through legal

representatives and others3; The State of H.P. & Ors Vs.

Karam Chand & Anr.4; Kusum & Ors Vs. State of H.P. &

Ors5 and ; Hari Krishan & Anr Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 6

in support of the claim made by the petitioners for acquisition

of their land utilized by the respondents for construction for

the road in question and to pay them compensation

2
(2023)11 SCC 541.

3

(2023)11 SCC 564
4
2023 (suppl.) HLR (DB) 2031
5
CWP No.5048 of 2022 decided on 04.07.2023
6
CWP No.7465 of 2023 decided on 21.08.2024.

::: Downloaded on – 30/08/2024 20:36:35 :::CIS

                                   -5-                       2024:HHC:7647-DB



    accordingly.

Learned Additional Advocate General opposed

the petition primarily on the ground that petitioners’ claim

.

suffers from delay and laches. The road was constructed

during the year 1988, thereafter improved during the year

1995-96, whereas, petitioners had claimed the relief of

acquisition of their land for the first time by preferring this

writ petition in the year 2020. Learned Additional Advocate

General submitted that the petitioners had acquiesced to the

construction of the road. They had voluntarily offered their

lands. They had consented to the construction of the road by

utilizing their lands, hence, they are not entitled for any

compensation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

considered the case file. My observations are as under:-

5(i) Respondents have not disputed that the subject

land parcels owned by the petitioners, have been utilized for

construction of Hira Nagar-Dhamoon road.

5(ii) The plea of the respondents that the petitioners

had voluntarily offered the subject land for construction of

the road in question without payment of any compensation,

::: Downloaded on – 30/08/2024 20:36:35 :::CIS

-6- 2024:HHC:7647-DB

is belied from the fact that the respondents had issued

Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 23.11.2000 and

thereafter on 12.06.2006. In both these Notifications issued

.

under Section 4 of the Act, petitioners’ land parcels alongwith

several other land parcels owned by different individuals,

were included. Respondents, even otherwise, have not placed

on record any document to show consent alleged to have

been given by the petitioners for using their property without

payment of compensation.

5(iii) The respondent’s have also not disputed the fact

that they have acquired the lands owned by other individuals

whose land parcels have been reflected in Section 4 of

Notifications dated 23.11.2000 and 12.06.2006 and further

that it is only the petitioners, who have been left out from

payment of due compensation to them in accordance with

law. The petitioners are entitled to be treated at equal footing

vis-à-vis the others whose lands have been acquired for

construction of the same road i.e.Hira Nagar-Dhamoon road.

In given facts of the case, it is not open for the respondents to

discriminate the petitioners.Once the lands belonging to some

of the land owners had been acquired for construction of the

::: Downloaded on – 30/08/2024 20:36:35 :::CIS

-7- 2024:HHC:7647-DB

same road, it is incumbent upon the respondents to give

same treatment to the present petitioners, whose lands were

also utilized for the construction of that very road.

.

5(iv). It would also be appropriate to refer to the

judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on

28.06.2023 in Labdhu Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors7. 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 Sharma8; Swaraj Abhiyan(I) vs.

Union of India and ors. 9; Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.10; D.B. Basnett Vs. Collector

East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr. 11; B.K.

Ravichandra and Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. 12; Sukh

Dutt Ratra & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 13,

the contention of delay and laches raised by the respondents-

7

CWP No.6581/2021 decided on 28.06.2023
8
(1986) 2 SCC 68
9
(2016) 7 SCC 498
10
(2020) 9 SCC 356
11
(2020) 4 SCC 572
12
(2021) 14 SCC 703
13
(2022) 7 SCC 508

::: Downloaded on – 30/08/2024 20:36:35 :::CIS

-8- 2024:HHC:7647-DB

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

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

::: Downloaded on – 30/08/2024 20:36:35 :::CIS

-9- 2024:HHC:7647-DB

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

::: Downloaded on – 30/08/2024 20:36:35 :::CIS

– 10 – 2024:HHC:7647-DB

established that the land was voluntarily donated or given by

the petitioners willingly for construction of the road in

question.

.

In view of above-referred decisions, the relief

prayed for by the petitioners cannot be declined on the basis

of plea of delay and laches. The respondent, being a welfare

State, has to act in just and fair manner after following the

due process of law.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case

and in light of the legal position, this writ petition is allowed.

The respondents are directed to initiate the process for

acquiring subject land of the petitioners utilized for

construction of the road in accordance with law within a

period of eight weeks from today and complete the entire

process within a period of one year thereafter.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
August 30, 2024
R.Atal

::: Downloaded on – 30/08/2024 20:36:35 :::CIS