2025:HHC:4611-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1058 of 2020 Decided on : 04.03.2025 Shri Hari Dutt and others. …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav Kanwar, Advocate, vice Mr. M.P. Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(A) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents for initiating acquisition proceedings with respect to the land belonging to the petitioners as mentioned in the body of petition which land has been utilized by the respondents for the construction of 'Bali Khad Road' in Ghati-Ashwani accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (B) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4611-DB respondents directing them reasonable to pay compensation adequate/to the petitioners in accordance with law after initiating acquisition proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that in the course of construction of road from Bali Ghati to Ashwani Khad Road, which was carried out in the year 2012-13, the land of the petitioners was utilized without acquiring the same in accordance with law and without compensating them. It is in this backdrop that they have approached this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to take steps for the acquisition of the land, in accordance with law and also compensate them, in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. The stand of the respondents is that the land in issue was utilized for the construction of the road at the request of the people of the area, who voluntarily offered the land for availing the road connectivity, which included the petitioners as well as their predecessors-in-interest. It is further the stand of the State that the petition is stale and belated and, therefore, also the petitioners are not entitled to the relief, as is being 3 2025:HHC:4611-DB prayed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 5. The factum of the land of the petitioners having been utilized by the State for the purpose of the construction of the road, has not disputed. The only contention of the State is that this was done at the behest of the residents of the area, which included petitioners as well as their predecessors-in- interest, who voluntarily parted with the land so as to enable the State to construct a road. However, this contention of the State is not substantiated by any document on record from which it can be inferred that the land was voluntarily given by either the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest with an express holding out that they shall not be claiming any compensation in lieu of the utilization of the land. Though learned Additional Advocate General relied upon Annexure R-1, appended with the petition, which is the Resolution of a Gram Panchayat i.e. Gram Panchayat Hinnar, but this Court is of the considered view that this Resolution of the Gram Panchayat cannot be 4 2025:HHC:4611-DB construed as an estoppel as far as the Right to Property of the petitioners is concerned because it cannot be inferred form Resolution that the same was on the asking of either the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest. 6. It is settled law that none can be deprived of his property except in accordance with law. It is further settled law that the State cannot utilize the land of an individual without compensating the individual, in accordance with law. In fact, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated the practice, by the State specially, of utilizing the land of the individuals without compensating them, in situations where the State is not able to satisfy that the land was voluntarily given by the land owner either by way of gift or any other mode of transfer of property. 7. Though Right to Property is now no more a Fundamental Right, but it still is a Constitutional Right. In the light of this, if said Constitutional Right is infringed by anyone, more so, the State and in case the land of a individual is utilized for any purpose, then either the State has to seek voluntary transfer thereof from the land owner in one of the recognized 5 2025:HHC:4611-DB modes of transfer of property or compensate the land owner in accordance with law. 8. In the present case, as there is neither any document from which it can be inferred that there was a voluntary giving up of the land by the petitioners for the construction of the road nor there is any document from which it can be inferred that due compensation was paid to the land owners i.e. the petitioners, in the light of utilization of their land, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to initiate the process for the acquisition of the land of the petitioners and pay due compensation to them in accordance with law. Process of acquisition of the land of the petitioners be initiated and completed within a period of four months from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 04, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)