IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 500 of 2017 Decided on 14th August 2025 Sh. Sandeep Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. “Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondents to initiate the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land of the petitioner comprised in Khata-Khautauni No.56, Min/125 Khasra No.1073 area measuring 00-05-53 hectares situated in Chack Shallar, Tehsild Jubbal, District, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in terms of the provision of “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2 ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or directions directing the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings in time bound manner by passing award in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his land, details whereof are given in the petition has been utilized for the construction of Nandpur/Anti-Ruhil Road, however, till date, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner for the said land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that despite the fact that similarly situated persons have been duly compensated by the State, yet, despite various communications and legal notices issued by the petitioner, till date he has not been paid any compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State has submitted that the respondent-Department had constructed the road after volunteer surrender of the land, which was consented to by the late father of the petitioner as well as other land owners. He further stated that the road was constructed somewhere in the year 1986 and the filing of the writ petition after a long lapse, in 3 the year 2017, demonstrates that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. He further submits that the road was constructed on account of the persistence demand of the residents including the petitioner and, therefore also, it does not behove upon the petitioner to file this petition belatedly seeking compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has denied the contention and has submitted that there was no volunteer surrender of the land either by the late father of the petitioner or by the other land owners. He submits that no material has been placed on record by the respondents to substantiate this bald contention. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents with the petition. 7. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner/his predecessor in interest has been utilized for the construction of the road in issue. The contention of the State that the land was voluntarily surrendered by the father of the petitioner for the construction of the road is not substantiated by any material on 4 record. No document has been placed on record by the respondent-State to substantiate this fact. 8. Thus, in the absence of their being any material on record to suggest that the land was voluntarily surrendered in favour of the Government, obviously, the State cannot shun away from its duty to compensate the land owner for the utilization of his land. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen numbers of cases has been pleased to hold that the right to property being a constitutional right under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India and the owner of the property cannot be deprived thereof without compensation in accordance with. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to acquire the land of the petitioner in accordance with law and compensate him. In the light of the fact that it has been submitted that the road was constructed somewhere in the year 1986, which is agreed to between the parties, it is ordered that the deemed date of acquisition will be 01.01.2006 and the petitioner shall be paid the market value of the land was existing on the said date. Further, no interest will 5 be payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2016 upto the date of the filing of the writ petition. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 14, 2025 (Vinod)