Kusum & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

The petitioners contend that the respondents have constructed Jong-Jaindi road through their land measuring one and half bigha but without acquiring the same or paying any compensation to them. A direction has been sought to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings qua petitioners’ land utilized by the respondents in the construction of road.

From conjoint pleadings of the parties following facts emerge:-

2(i) Jong-Jaindi road was constructed by the Public Works Department of the respondents-State in the year 1990- 92. According to the respondents, the road was constructed on the persistent demand of the residents of the area including the petitioners, though, the petitioners dispute this fact.

2(ii) The respondents issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ( the Act in short) for acquiring the land on which Jong-Jaindi road was constructed. The acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1996. Petitioners’ land covered under the road, was also part of the acquisition proceedings. The award could not be announced as all codal formalities required could not be completed within period stipulated under the Act.

2(iii) In the year 2008, the respondents again initiated the process for acquisition of the land. This time again, proceedings could not be completed, which resulted in lapse of the acquisition proceedings. Some of the land owners, whose land parcels were covered under the road, filed Civil Writ Petition No.6811/2014 (Mukund Lal Vs. State of H.P.) in this Court. The writ petition was disposed off on 29.12.2014. Taking note of the fact that the respondent-department had already issued requisite notification under Section 4 of the Act, the Court directed the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings as soon as possible.

2(iv) In view of the aforesaid directions passed in No.6811/2014, the Land Acquisition Officer HPPWD (CZ) Mandi, prepared acquisition papers of private land measuring 00-23-22 hectares in Mohal Bari. The papers were forwarded for issuance of notification under Section 11 of the Act. The land acquisition papers were prepared only for those khasra numbers, which were mentioned in the writ petition being CWP No.6811/2014 i.e. in respect of the lands of the petitioners therein. The Additional Chief Secretary (PW) constituted a Negotiation Committee for the determination of rates. The Committee determined the negotiable rates on 18.03.2017. Notification under Section 11 was issued on 28.09.2017. The negotiated rates were approved on 05.02.2019. On the basis of approved negotiated rates, the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer HPPWD (CZ) Mandi on 11.06.2019.

Contentions

The contention of the petitioners is that their land was also utilized by the respondents for construction of Jong-Jaindi road. The road was constructed by the respondents over several parcels of the land including the one belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be deprived of their land without acquiring the same and paying due compensation, in accordance with law.

On behalf of the respondents, contention has been raised that the petitioners’ claim in the instant petition suffers from delay and latches.

Having heard learned counsel on both sides, I am of the considered view that this writ petition deserves to be allowed not only on facts but also in law. My observations are as under:-

Observations

4(i) It is not in dispute that the respondents constructed Jong-Jaindi road over several parcels of the land including the land owned by the petitioners.

4(ii) Respondents themselves initiated the proceedings in the year 1996 for acquiring the land utilized for construction of the road including the land belonging to the petitioners. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for the land covered under the road including the land belonging to the petitioners. For want of completion of codal formalities within time prescribed under the Act, the award was not passed.

The respondents again initiated the land acquisition proceedings in the year 2008. These proceedings also included the land of the petitioners covered by the road. For want of completion of codal formalities, these proceedings also lapsed.

It is, thus, apparent that the respondents had taken steps for acquiring the land of the petitioners. Section 4 notification was also issued by the respondents, which included petitioners’ land.

4(iii) The respondents have now denied to acquire petitioners’ land and to pay them due compensation merely on the ground that petitioners were not parties in CWP No.6811/2014. It is not the case of the respondents that order dated 29.12.2014 disposing off CWP No.6811/2014 had restrained them from acquiring the land of those land owners, whose lands were covered under the road but were not petitioners in that writ petition.

4(iv) In the aforesaid factual background of the case, the contention raised by the respondents of petitioners’ claim being barred by delay and laches cannot be accepted. The Negotiated Award was passed by the respondents on 11.06.2019. This award cannot be confined only to the petitioners in CWP No.6811/2014. The benefit of this award is also required to be extended to the present petitioners as well. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to refer to recent judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.06.2023 in CWP No.6581/2021 ( Labdhu Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors). 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 utilized for construction of same road. Road in that case was laid in the year 1995-96. Taking note of various pronouncements viz. (1986) 2 SCC 68 (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Umeed Ram Sharma), (2016) 7 SCC 498 (Swaraj Abhiyan(I) vs. Union of India and ors.), (2020) 9 SCC 356 (Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), (2020) 4 SCC 572 (D.B. Basnett Vs. Collector East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr.), (2021) 14 SCC 703 (B.K. Ravichandra and Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors.), (2022) 7 SCC 508 (Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), the contention of delay and laches raised by the respondents-State was turned down. The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the State cannot evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated was reiterated. It will be appropriate to extract following paragraphs from Labdhu Ram’s case (supra):-

“18. In Sukh Dutt Ratra ( 4 Supra) , the appellants 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 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.

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.

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.”

The ratio of the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. In the instant case also, the land of the petitioners had admittedly been utilized for construction of the road, but neither the same has been acquired nor any compensation has been paid to the petitioners. Respondents-State on its own accord initiated acquisition process in the year 1996 as well as in the year 2008. Petitioners’ land in question was part of the land acquisition process. However, acquisition proceedings lapsed on account of non-completion of codal formalities within the prescribed period. Some of the land owners who approached this Court in CWP No.6811/2014 have been awarded compensation vide Negotiated Award No.1/2019 passed on 11.06.2019. Petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioners in CWP No.6811/2014. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the legal position, claim of the petitioners is justified. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to demarcate the land of the petitioners utilized for the purpose of the road in question within four weeks from today. Such land shall be deemed to have been acquired for the construction of the road. Respondents are further directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners in terms of the Negotiated Award No.1/2019 passed on 11.06.2019 with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act within eight weeks from today.

The petition is disposed of in above terms. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.