2025:HHC:7625 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3225 of 2016 Decided on: 25.03.2025 Shri Prem Singh 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. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, DAG. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “……… b) issue writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to proceed with the acquisition of land comprised in khewat No. 570 min/96 min/526, khatauni No. 163/155, khasra No. 1607 (00-11-73 Hect) and khasra No.1608 (0-04-17 Hewct) situated in village Koeri, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una. HP, as provided under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to make payment of compensation of land, solatium, compulsory acquisition along with interest etc. etc. as provided under few within a reasonable period. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:7625 c) Issue of writ of certiorari to the effect that the impugned imply dated 2.02.2016. contained in Annexure P-6 may be quashed and set aside, to the extent that the land was given with free consent for the construction of road, being wrong and false in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that their land, description whereof is given in the writ petition, was utilized by the respondent- State for the construction of Una-Gagret road. Initially in the year 1967-68, land comprised in Khasra No. 1609, measuring 00-24-48 Hects., was utilized after due acquisition. Thereafter, in between 1981 to 1985, road was washed away on account of heavy floods, on account of which, the road was diverted and land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1607 and 1608 was utilized for construction of road and later on, a new RCC bridge was also constructed over Lahorli KhaId so as to facilitate the movement of traffic. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that their land has been utilized by the respondents so as to connect the road with newly constructed bridge, however, till date, they have not been compensated qua the utilization of their land. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that initially the petitioners had also approached the Civil Court by way 3 of a Civil Suit but the same was withdrawn when an assurance was given by the Authority that the process already stood started for acquisition of the land of the petitioners. He has appended the copy of order passed in Civil Suit with the rejoinder to demonstrate this fact. Learned Counsel submitted that despite this assurance, on account of which the civil suit was withdrawn, the land of the petitioners has not been acquired. 4. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondents demonstrates that the factum of land of the petitioners being utilized for construction of road has not been disputed by the respondents but according to them the land was given by the land owners out of their free will and volition and as the petitioners have approached the Civil Court for the grant of compensation after 41 years, therefore, the petition is not maintainable being time barred. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted on the same lines. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents cannot be allowed to utilize the land of the petitioners without compensating them in accordance with law. As it is not in dispute that the land of the petitioners was 4 utilized after the existing road was washed/damaged on account of heavy floods which devastated the area in between 1981-1985, the respondents cannot be allowed to take a lame excuse that the land of the petitioners was utilized with their consent. Except bald assertion that has been made in the reply by the respondents, there is no evidence placed on record by them, from which it can be inferred that any consent was given by the petitioners to the effect that they shall be having no objection for utilization of their land for the purpose of construction of the road and they shall claim no compensation in lieu thereof. Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Right to property being a Constitutional Right, a person cannot be deprived thereof except in accordance with law. Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of the State of utilization of the land of individuals without compensating them in accordance with law. In this case also, the land of the petitioners has been utilized by the respondents-State for the construction of the road and further it could not be demonstrated that the land was indeed gifted or otherwise parted with voluntarily by the petitioners with the assurance that in lieu of utilization thereof, they shall not claim any compensation. 6. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to acquire the 5 land of the petitioners, subject matter of the writ petition, in accordance with law and pay due compensation to them. The acquisition proceedings be completed within a period of six months from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 25, 2025 (narender)