2025:HHC:23607 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8865 of 2024 Decided on: 21.07.2025 Ashok Kumar 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 : Ms. Simran, Advocate vice Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) The Respondents may kindly be directed to produce the records and the Respondents may kindly be directed to acquire the land measuring 8 biswas in Khasra comprised 395/225/ 167/1 situated No. at Mauza Johron, Tehsil Nahan, Distt. Sirmour, HP in accordance with law as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper. ii) The Respondents may kindly be directed to pay the compensation of acquired land to the Petitioners in accordance with law.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23607 2. The case of the petitioners is that their land, description whereof is given in para-2 of the petition, was utilized by the respondents for the purpose of construction of a road namely, “Kala Amb-Trilokpur” comprised in Kjhasra No. 395/225/159/167, measuring 1 bigha, 5 biswa situated in Mouja Johron, Tehsil Nahan, Distrcit Sirmour, H.P. in the year 1970 and at the relevant time, no steps were taken by the State to acquire the same, in accordance with law and to compensate the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners/petitioners and further till date, no compensation thereof has been paid to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners/ petitioners. 3. The stand of the respondents is that the land which was utilized for the purpose of constructions of road in question in the year 1971 was done on the demand of the people of the area and the petition is filed after 50 years which clearly demonstrates that the filing of the petition is nothing but an afterthought. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the fact that it is not disputed by the State that the land of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners/petitioners was utilized for the purpose of construction of road in issue, for which, no compensation was been paid and further as no material has been placed on record by the respondents to demonstrate that 3 2025:HHC:23607 the land has been voluntarily given eight by the predecessors-in- interest of the petitioners or the petitioners for the purpose of construction of road in issue, the petitioners are entitled for compensation in lieu of utilization of their land by the respondents. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that filing of this petition is nothing but an afterthought as it is grossly hit by delay and laches and therefore, as the filing of this writ petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law, the same be dismissed for the reason that the road was constructed by the Department on the demand of the people of the area, including the petitioners. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that as the land of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners/petitioners was utilized for the construction of road in question without their consent and without acquiring the land in accordance with law, the State cannot be allowed to deny due compensation to the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches. 7. It is settled law that the State cannot utilize land of a private individual without compensating the individual in accordance with law, be it for the public purpose. This has been 4 2025:HHC:23607 reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in umpteen numbers of cases by holding that as right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the owner of the property has to be compensated if his property is being utilized by the State. 8. In the present case, the State has not been able to substantiate that utilization of land of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners/petitioners was with the consent of the parties, therefore, it stands established that the land was utilized without compensating the land owners. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that let the land in issue be acquired in accordance with law and due compensation be paid to the petitioners. In the light of the fact that as per the petitioners, the road was constructed in the year 1970 and as per the respondents, the road was constructed in the year 1971, let the deemed date of acquisition be taken as 01.01.1970 and the petitioners be paid market price of the land, as was prevailing as on 01.01.1970 as per law prevailing at the relevant time. The period from 01.01.1970 till date of filing of the writ petition, shall be excluded for the purpose of payment of interest etc. Let needful be positively done by completing the entire exercise within a period of six months from today. 5 2025:HHC:23607 With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 21, 2025 (narender)