2025:HHC:30207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 584 of 2015 Date of decision: 4.9.2025. Masadi Ram (deceased) through LRs & others ...Appellants Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr. Sanjeev Sood & Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, DAG. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): This Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No.1, Sundernagar, in Civil Suit No. 42-1/2011, has been set aside and reversed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 42 of 2011 before the original Court, claiming themselves to be owner in possession of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 95/104, khasra No. 496, khata khatauni No. 54 min/58, khasra No. 561, khata khatauni No. 128 min/139, khasra No.505, khata khatauni No. 141/159, khasra No. 501, khata khatauni No. 154/172, khasra No. 504, khata khatauni No. 52 min/56, khasra No. 560, situated in Mohal Sabyahan, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (for short the suit land). 3. It was alleged in the plaint that Sundernagar- Luhnu Road was constructed by the defendants in 1984 by utilizing some portion of the suit land, as was depicted in the site plan enclosed with the plaint. The plaintiffs had categorically averred that at the time of utilization of the suit land for construction of the road, they were assured that acquisition proceedings would be initiated in due course and thereafter, despite their repeated requests and lastly, issuance of notice under Section 80 of the Code, nothing was paid to them as compensation, forcing the plaintiffs to file the suit. -3- 4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. The factum of utilization of the suit land for construction of road was not denied. It was submitted that the construction of road was completed before the year 2000 and the road had been declared fit for plying of vehicles on 11.11.2000. It was the case of the defendants that the road was constructed with express consent of the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs had not raised any objection during the construction and more particularly for the last ten years since when the road had become use worthy for vehicular traffic. 5. In replication filed by the plaintiffs, the contents of plaint were reiterated after denying the contrary averments made in the written statement. 6. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “i) Whether the defendants have constructed a public road through the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs, as alleged? OPP ii). Whether the defendants undertook to acquire the suit land as per law, as alleged? OPP -4- iii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief. of mandatory injunction against the defendants qua the suit land, as prayed? OPP iv). Whether in the alternative, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of possession of suit land against the defendants, as prayed? OPP v). Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD vi). Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD vii). Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own acts and conducts to file the present suit? OPD viii). Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD ix). Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD x). Relief”. Issues No. 1 to 3 were answered in affirmative, whereas all other issues were answered in negative and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. A decree to the following effect was passed:- “In view of my findings on the above decided issues supra, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is as such decreed with costs and the defendants are directed to initiate process of acquisition of the suit land of the plaintiffs, utilized in the construction of road from Bangaloo-Luhnoo road in Muhal Sabyahan, -5- Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P., within six months from today and to complete the process within further six months from the date of initiation of the process and to pay compensation for the acquiring land to the plaintiffs as per acquisition process. A decree sheet be accordingly prepared. The file after due completion be consigned to the record room”. 10. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants filed appeal under Section 96 of the Code, which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Mandi vide impugned judgment and decree. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal by holding that since the road had been constructed in the year 1984 and the plaintiffs had not submitted any written representation for the compensation or acquisition of the land, their implied consent for the construction of road could be inferred. 11. This appeal was admitted on 11.12.2015 on the following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on account of misreading, misappreciation and misconstruction of the law and facts as well as the oral and documentary -6- evidence available on record, the judgment and decree under challenge in the main appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable? ii) Whether in the absence of the plea of adverse possession and the land being not acquired the plaintiff could be denied the relief of mandatory and prohibitory injunction and in the alternative relief of possession which had been claimed and was subject matter of the issue in the trial Court?” 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 13. The facts of the case are not denied, rather there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts that the plaintiffs were owner in possession of the suit land and a part of it had been utilized by the defendants for construction of Sundernagar-Luhnu Road. It has also been held by both the Courts that the road was constructed in the year 1984. The admitted case of the defendants was that the road had been certified fit for vehicular traffic w.e.f. 11.11.2000. Thus, the existence of road since long was duly established. -7- 14. The learned First Appellate Court has non- suited the plaintiffs only on the ground that they had not made any written representation after construction of road and thus, such conduct of the plaintiffs could be considered as an act of implied consent on their part. 15. Noticeably, the specific plea of the plaintiffs in the plaint was that they had allowed the construction of road through the suit land on assurance of acquisition in due course. It has also been the case of the plaintiffs that they kept orally representing to the authorities without result and lastly had issued notice Ext. PW-3/C under Section 80 of the Code. Having failed to achieve any result, they had filed the suit. 16. In the written statement of the defendants, there was no plea of consent in writing having been obtained from plaintiffs before or after the construction of road. They also had pleaded the existence of implied consent of the plaintiffs. 17. Plaintiff No.6 Sunka Ram has examined himself as PW-3. His examination-in-chief was submitted by way of affidavit Ext. PW-3/A and therein also, the categoric -8- stand was that the defendants had assured the plaintiffs about the acquisition proceedings to be initiated in due course. It has also been submitted that the plaintiffs had been making oral representations before issuance of notice under Section 80 of the Code. The version of PW-3 has not been specifically challenged in the cross-examination. He categorically denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs had given consent for construction of road. 18. The question thus arises whether the plaintiffs could be denied the relief in the facts proved on record. 19. In Vidya Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, 2020 (2) SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of H.P. & others, 2022 (7) SCC 508, Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law or procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation though has not been expressly included in Article 300A of the Constitution of India, it can be inferred. 20. In Vidya Devi (supra), the land of the petitioner Vidya Devi had been utilized by the State authorities in the year 1967. She had approached the High Court in the year -9- 2008, when she found that similar situated persons were awarded compensation. To similar effect are the facts in Sukh Dutt Ratra. Admittedly, there was huge delay between utilization of land of private individuals and their approaching the Courts. Taking into consideration the facts of the cases, as also the Constitutional provision of Article 300A, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property etc. except in accordance with procedure established by law. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property without following due process of law would be violative of human right as also the Constitutional right. The contention raised by the State in the above mentioned cases regarding oral consent of the owners was also rejected being baseless. 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further reiterated that delay and plea of laches in such cases cannot be raised because the cause of action continues. 22. In the case at hand the inference as to implied consent is not well founded, in the backdrop of the specific pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs, as noticed above. -10- Further, it stands established beyond doubt that the suit land has been utilized by the defendants for construction of road without adoption of due process of law. 23. In view of what has been observed above, the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court cannot be sustained. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 24. In result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 01.10.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2015 is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No.1, Sundernagar, in Civil Suit No. 42- 1/2011, is affirmed. No orders as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) 4th September, 2025. Judge (kck)