Chet Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:­

"It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to the respondents for initiating acquisition proceedings in respect to land bearing Khewat No.26/28, Khatauni No.91/92, Khasra No.953 and 1209, measuring 00­17­18 hectares, situated at Patwar Circle Mehana, Mohal Badhal, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, as per jamabandi for the year 2010­2011 dated 26.03.2019, in the interest of justice and fair play".

The contention of the petitioner is that he was owner­in­possession of the land comprised in Khewat No.26/28, Khatauni No.91/92, Khasra No.953 and 1209, measuring 00­17­18 hectares, situated at Patwar Circle Mehana, Mohal Badhal, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P., part whereof has been utilized by the respondents/State for the purpose of construction of Badhal Link Road in the year 1986.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P­2, which is a Notification issued by the authority concerned under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, perusal of which demonstrates that at one stage, process was initiated by the State for acquisition of the land so utilized by the it for the purpose of construction of the road in issue.

It is in this background that present petition stands filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the State be directed to acquire the land which stood utilized for the purpose of construction of the road in issue and compensate him in accordance with law.

The petition is opposed by the respondents­State, inter alia, on the ground that petitioner has approached this Court at a highly belated stage and further the road in issue was constructed on asking of the villagers itself, which includes the petitioner also and therefore also, petitioner is not entitled for any relief as has been prayed in the petition.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

As it is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner stood utilized by respondents/State for the purpose of construction of road, in my considered view, the State is duty bound to have had compensated the petitioner for the land which so stood utilized. The contention of learned Additional Advocate General that the same was done with the consent of the petitioner, holds no water because there is no document on record from which it can be inferred that either the land was gifted by the petitioner to the State for the purpose of construction of the road or he gave his consent in writing to the effect that he shall not claim any compensation in case the land was utilized for the purpose of construction of the road.

In these circumstances, the State is duty bond to acquire the land in accordance with law and pay due and admissible compensation to the petitioner. Alternatively, the State can hand back the portion of the land which stood utilized by it for the purpose of construction of the road, to the petitioner.

As far as issue of delay and latches is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases has reiterated that delays and latches shall not come to rescue of the State from compensating the land owners whose lands stands utilized by the State for the purpose of construction of road etc.

As far as contention of learned Additional Advocate General that there are disputed question of fact involved in the case is concerned, in my considered view, this plea also holds no water for the simple reason that when the allegation of the petitioner is that his land stood utilized for the purpose of construction of road without acquiring the same in accordance with law and in this fact is not disputed by the State, then it cannot be said that there is any disputed question of fact involved in the petition.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the direction that proceedings be initiated for acquisition of land of the petitioner forthwith or alternatively, vacant possession of the land be handed over by the petitioner. Action in this regard positively be initiated within a period of one month from today and completed within a period of six months thereafter. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.