IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.518 of 2018. Reserved on : 21 st March, 2025. Decided on : 10 th April, 2025. State of H.P. & Ors. ...Appellants. Versus Ram Chand ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant(s): Mr. Gautam Sood, Dy. A.G. For the respondent: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya , Judge. By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, appellants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge(I) Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 68 of 2010 has been affirmed. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they held before the learned trial Court. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that plaintiff owned land in Mouza Plohta, Muhal Neri- Hadbast No. 17, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Defendants constructed “Bharari-Plohta” road and during such process utilized the land of plaintiff without acquisition and payment of compensation. Plaintiff filed the suits seeking decree of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. 4. Defendants contested the suit by raising questions of maintainability, estoppel, non joinder of necessary parties, valuation, limitation etc.. 5. It was submitted that the road had been constructed in the year 1999. Plaintiff was to file suit within three years and due to long delay the suit was alleged to be not maintainable. 6. Learned trial Court held the plaintiff entitled to the relief and defendants were directed to take steps for acquisition of land of plaintiff utilized for construction of “Bharari-Plohta” road and to disburse the assessed compensation to him expeditiously and not later than six months from the date of passing of decree. 3 7. The defendants filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Mandi vide impugned judgment and decree. Learned First Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal of the State and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 8. The instant appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the plaintiff/respondent who was guilt of laches or under delay in approaching the Civil Court and had not even explained his blame worthy conduct of delay and laches still does entitled plaintiff/respondent for relief of mandatory injunction without seeking relief of possession as per law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in RSA No.6/2014 dated 14.10.2015? 2. Whether the law of limitation is not applicable in filing such suit in which proper is used by the State for public purpose.? 3. Whether the Court can direct the defendants/appellants to start acquisition proceeding qua relevant portion of the suit land within six months and to grant compensation to the plaintiff in accordance with law?” 4 9. The Court of the first instance as also the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that the land of the plaintiff was utilized for construction of “Bharari-Plohta” road without payment of compensation to him. No dispute has been raised as to such findings of fact. It has only been contended on behalf of the defendants that the suit filed by the plaintiff after almost 11 years was hopelessly time barred. In alternative, plaintiff having remained silent for such a long period was estopped from raising the claim. Principle of acquiescence has also sought been applied against him on the premise that the plaintiff was aware about the construction of road and the road was constructed with his implied consent and now he cannot, turn around to raise objections against the construction of road. 10. Defendants are constituents of welfare State. It is settled that the welfare State cannot claim adverse possession against its citizens. Thus, the suit on the basis of title cannot be said to be time barred, which right could only be defeated by proof of perfection of title by way of adverse possession by the other. 11. Admittedly, the defendants were not in possession of any documents to show that the plaintiff had consented for construction of road through his land. The issue is no more 5 res integra. In Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022)7 SCC 508, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in almost identical fact situation, after placing reliance on Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, (2020)2 SCC 569 has held as under:- “23. This court, in Vidya Devi (supra) facing an almost identical set of facts and circumstances – rejected the contention of ‘oral’ consent to be baseless and outlined the responsibility of the State: “12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. 12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769] held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension.” 24. And with regards to the contention of delay 6 and laches, this court went on to hold: “12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it. [P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22]” 25. Concluding that the forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A, this court allowed the appeal. We find that the approach taken by this court in Vidya Devi (supra) is squarely applicable to the nearly identical facts before us in the present case.” 12. In light of above analysis, the suit of plaintiff was neither barred by limitation or the principle of estoppel of 7 acquiescence would apply against him. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. In result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree are affirmed. No order as to the costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forth with. 14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 10th April, 2025. (jai)