2025:HHC:27313 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10941 of 2024 Decided on: 13.08.2025 Sh. Pradeep Kumar and others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. H.K.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy 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 the respondents may kindly be directed to acquire the land of the petitioners and make the payment of compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that land of their predecessor-in-interest was utilized by the respondents for the purpose of construction of a road, namely, Sarog-Kadyawag road, however, utilization of the land, details whereof are given in the petition, was without compensating the petitioners or their predecessor–in-interest, in accordance with law. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27313 act of the respondents of utilizing their land without compensating the owner is in violation of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in terms whereof, as right to property is a Constitutional right, the owner thereof cannot be deprived of his/her property without compensating him/her in accordance with law. Accordingly, he prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to acquire the utilized land, in accordance with law. 4. The respondent-State, though in the reply filed, has admitted the factum of utilization of land for the construction of the road which construction was carried out by the State in the year 2005-06, however, their stand is that said construction was carried out by utilizing the land of the father of the petitioners on the basis of his consent, which was given by him by way of an affidavit, which affidavit of the father of the petitioners in original has been appended with the reply. Accordingly, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that as the utilization of the land of the father of the petitioners was consensual and thereafter, huge public money was spent by the respondents to construct the road, now it does not behove upon the petitioners to file this petition and seek compensation after the death of their father, who had filed an affidavit that he had no objection, in case, his land is utilized for the construction of the road in issue and who during his life time never 3 2025:HHC:27313 claimed compensation. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and having perused the affidavit of father of the petitioners, which has been appended with the reply of the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of this case, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Though, indeed it is settled law that owner of a property cannot be deprived of his/her property, except in accordance with law, but there is no bar that the owner of such property cannot volunteer for utilization of his property and in such a situation, obviously, the user agency is not obliged to pay any compensation to the owner of the land. In the present case, it is evident from the no objection certificate/affidavit which was given at the time of construction of the road by the late father of the petitioner that he volunteered the use of his land by the Public Works Department for the construction of the road. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that it was nowhere stated in the affidavit by the father of the petitioners, namely, Sh. Shiv Ram, that he will not claim any compensation in lieu of utilisation of his land for the construction of the road and it was just a simple no objection certificate/affidavit for the utilization of his land, does not impress the Court. In fact, in case, the State intended to use the 4 2025:HHC:27313 land of the petitioners for the construction of the road, then there was no necessity for the State to have sought any no objection from the owner thereof. The State could have easily utilized the land in light of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which empowers it to do so. Besides this, otherwise also, in case the State intended to use the land of the father of the petitioners for the purpose of construction of the road and the intent was to compensate the father of the petitioners for the utilization of the land, then there was no need to seek any affidavit/no objection in this regard from the father of the petitioners. Therefore, the intent of obtaining said affidavit, obviously, was that in lieu of utilization of land of the father of the petitioners, no compensation shall be claimed by him. 6. Now incidentally, the road even as per the State was constructed in the year 2005-06. Sh. Shiv Ram, who allowed his land to be utilized for the construction of the road, never came before the Court, seeking compensation in lieu of use of his land and it is his successors-in-interest, who have approached the Court after his death, which obviously, demonstrates that the petitioners have approached this Court with an ulterior motive which is further evident from the fact that there was no disclosure in the writ petition that the land was allowed to be utilized by their father, in terms of the no objection certificate/affidavit furnished by him, which in fact 5 2025:HHC:27313 amounts to concealment of material facts. Accordingly, in the light of above discussion, as this Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of this case, the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs prayed for, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 13, 2025 (narender)