State Of H.P. & Others vs Prakarti Bhushan

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ

The State has questioned the judgment dt. 11.8.2016 in CWP no. 3467 of 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge.

The case of respondent before the Single Judge

The respondent had filed the said Writ petition for direction to the appellants to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay compensation for depriving the respondent of his land or in alternative to handover the vacant possession of the land to the respondent. The respondent contended that without his knowledge and consent, the appellants had constructed the Balag-Kuthad Road through his land, and that when he came to know about the commencement of construction work of the road, he objected to the same, but he was assured by the officials employed by the appellants, who were working on the spot, that his land being utilized for construction of road shall be duly acquired, and that the respondent will be duly compensated for utilization of the said land. It is also contended that the land of two other persons namely Daulat Ram and Ram Singh had also been utilized for construction of the said road, but these persons have been paid compensation by the State Government by acquiring their lands. Respondent also had got issued a demand notice through registered post on 7.7.2008, demanding compensation for the land, which has been utilized for the construction of the road.

The stand of the State before the Single Judge

Reply was filed before the learned Single Judge by the appellants admitting the utilization of respondent’s land for the purpose of construction of road but, contending that the road had been constructed and completed in the year 1978, and after a gap of thirty years, respondent was demanding compensation. It is also contended that the respondent and other people of the area had been persistently demanding the road facility, and at that time neither the respondent nor any other land owners raised objections, but in fact volunteered to construct the road through their lands. It is also contended that the respondent verbally and willfully allowed the construction of road through his land, and now at the belated stage after a gap of many years, he cannot be permitted to demand compensation.

The judgment of learned Single Judge

The learned Single Judge considered the submissions of both the parties and allowed the Writ petition and directed the appellants to initiate process for acquisition of the land of the respondent in accordance with law and complete the entire proceedings before 30.4.2017.

The learned Single Judge, relying upon the ratio of decisions of Supreme Court cited before him, concluded that the appellants had not placed before the Court any material, from which it could be inferred that the respondent had given consent for construction of the road through his land. He has also held that there is no cogent explanation given by the respondent that his land was not acquired as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when the land of similarly situated persons were acquired under the provisions of the law by State Government and they had been duly compensated as per law.

He has also noted that Daulat Ram had been paid compensation under the negotiated settlement on 1.3.2007 and he had executed a sale deed in favour of the appellants on 29.5.2007.

The learned Single Judge also held that the Writ petition was filed on 18.9.2009 and the refusal has been conveyed to the respondent through his counsel by the Executive Engineer, (B & R), HP PWD, Theog, refusing the compensation to the respondent for utilization of his land on 17.3.2009. Considering the same, he held that there is no reason that the respondent cannot be compensated by the State Government for utilization of his land and there was no inordinate delay in filing the Writ petition on 18.9.2009.

The learned Single Judge observed that no person can be deprived of his property without following due process of law and valuable right to property could not be defeated on technical objections like delay and laches as it was the duty of the functionaries of the State to follow the Rule of law.

The present LPA

Assailing the same, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

Learned Deputy Advocate General contended that the learned Single Judge erred in granting the relief to the respondent. She also contended that the learned Single Judge ignored the fact that the road was constructed under the said scheme upon the consent of the local people, including the respondent and there is no question of being paid any compensation. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the Writ petition beyond the period of limitation of three years as fixed under the Limitation Act, 1963; the respondent had in fact filed the Writ petition more than twenty four years after depriving him of his land by the appellants; and should have, therefore, dismissed the Writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

Consideration by this Court

Similar issue has been considered by this Court in Labdhu Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No. 6581 of 2021, dt. 28.6.2023, Shakuntla Devi & another vs. State of H.P. & another, CWP No. 491 of 2022, dt. 20.10.2023 and Rajinder Singh & others vs. State of H.P. & others CWP No. 1465 of 2022, dt. 31.10.2022.

This Court in this ratio has followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (2022) 7 SCC 508 and Vidya Devi vs. State of H.P. & Another (2020) 2 SCC 569 and granted relief to land losers.

Therefore, for reason alike, we agree with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, and find no merit in the appeal and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.