2025:HHC:1277 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 801 of 2024 Decided on: 07.01.2025 Sh. Banarsi Dass … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 to 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a).That Respondent No.1 to 3 may please be directed to take necessary steps for the acquisition of the land comprised in Khewat No. 7 min, Khatauni No. 8 min, Khasra Numbers 99 measuring 931 sq. mts and Khasra Number 101 measuring 14371 sq. mts located at Mohal Thehra, Teshil Jwalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., by instituting proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in order to afford adequate compensation to the petitioner and other owners of this land.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1277 2. The case of the petitioner is that he alongwith proforma respondents is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No. 7 min, Khatauni No. 8 min, Khasra Numbers 99 measuring 931 sq. mts and Khasra Number 101 measuring 14371 sq. mts located at Mohal Thehra, Teshil Jwalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. His grievance is that land comprised in Khasra Nos. 99 and 101 has been utilized by the respondents for the purpose of construction of a Check Dam as well as a Pump House without the consent of the petitioner or the proforma respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land of the petitioner has been utilized without due acquisition thereof and without any compensation being paid to the petitioner or the proforma respondents. He submitted that the act of the respondents of utilizing the land of the petitioner as well as proforma respondents without their consent and without compensating them in accordance with law is bad in law as the respondents cannot be allowed to utilize the land of the petitioner and proforma respondents without compensating them. Learned Counsel further submitted that right to property being a Constitutional right, same cannot be infringed by the State and interest of justice would be served, in case, the respondents are directed to acquire the same in 3 2025:HHC:1277 accordance with law and be directed to pay due and adequate compensation to the petitioner as well as proforma respondents. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General on the strength of the reply has submitted that the land was utilized with the consent of the parties concerned and no objection was raised by them during the construction of the Check Dam and the Pump House. He submitted that the objection is being raised only after the completion of the work which demonstrated the ill intent of the parties. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that there is a dispute between the parties qua the respective share of theirs in the property and further as the land was otherwise also mortgaged with Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, Jawalamukhi, it could not have been acquired. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the present writ petition, the same deserves dismissal. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. It is not in dispute that the land, subject matter of the writ petition, stands utilized by the State for the purpose of construction of the Check Dam and Pump House. The contention of the respondents that the same was done with the consent of the 4 2025:HHC:1277 land owners is not substantiated by any document on record. Except the bald assertion of the respondent that the petitioner did not object to the construction work, no material has been placed on record, from which it can be inferred that any consent, at any point of time, was accorded by the owners of the land for the purpose of utilization of the same without seeking any compensation in lieu thereof. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in plethora of judgments has held that the right to property being a Constitutional right, owner thereof cannot be deprived of the same except in accordance with law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in fact has come down very heavily on the State Entities in such like cases and has observed that it is least expected from the State to utilize the land of the individuals without compensating them in accordance with law. Therefore, as it is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner and proforma respondents has been utilized by the respondents-State for the purpose of construction of Check Dam and Pump House without their consent, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that let the land in issue be acquired in accordance with law and compensation therefor be paid to the owners thereof in accordance with law within a period of three months from today. 5 2025:HHC:1277 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 07, 2025 (narender)