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: 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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,
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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