Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 105 (HP)

JAI RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-04-26

A.K.GOEL, SURJIT SINGH

body2005
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) - Petitioner Jai Ram has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a direction to the respondents to initiate proceedings for acquisition of land measuring 1 Bigha 8 Biswas, searing Khasra Nos. 565, 567, 568, 605 and land measuring 1 Bigha 7 Siswas bearing Khasra Nos. 602 and 356, situate at Mauja Deothi, Pargana Dharti, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. The case of the petitioner, as disclosed in the petition, may be summed up thus. The above described land of the petitioner was utilised by the respondents in the construction of a road known as Ghorna-Deothi road, sometime in the year 1991-92. However, no compensation was paid to the petitioner for the utilisation of the said land. Not only this, even the process for assessment/payment of compensation has not been initiated as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. So a direction has been sought to the respondents to initiate the process for the acquisition of the land and the payment of compensation. 2. Respondents in their written reply have-stated that the road was constructed on the demand of the local people and at the time of construction of the road the respondents were given to understand that no compensation for the land utilised in the construction of the road would be claimed by the private owners. It is also alleged that only 1 Bigha 8 Biswas land, comprised in Khasra No, 565, 567, 568 and 605, belonging to the petitioner has been utilised in the construction of the road. As regards the remaining land, it is alleged that Khasra No. 602 does not belong to the petitioner and no portion of khasra No. 356 has been utilised in the construction of the road. 3. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has not specifically controverted the plea taken in the reply that khasra No. 602 does not belong to him (the petitioner) and no portion of khasra No. 356 has been utilised in the construction of the road, in question, though, it has been stated in general terms that averments made in the relevant para of the reply ire not correct and that those made in the petition are reiterated. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the jamabandi pertaining to the khasra Nos. 565, 567, 568 and 605 only. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the jamabandi pertaining to the khasra Nos. 565, 567, 568 and 605 only. Jamabndi pertaining to the other two khasra Nos. i.e., 602 and 356, has not been placed on record. The omission on the part of the petitioner to place the jamabndi of these two numbers is indicative of the fact that the plea of the respondents that khasra No. 602 does not belong to him (the petitioner) and that Khasra No. 356 has not been utilised in the construction of the road, may not be incorrect. 4. The next point on which the parties are at issue is whether the respondents could have lawfully utilised the land of the petitioner for the construction of the road without paying compensation to him. The question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court as long back as in the year 1984 in Nokhia and others v. State of H.P. and others, 1984 ILR HP Series 906. In that case some private owners had been deprived of their land by the State by constructing a road thereon. When those persons approached the court, by filing a writ petition claiming compensation, a plea was raised on behalf of the State that the possession had been taken with the consent of the land owners. Rejecting the said plea, the Court held that the land owners could not have been deprived of their property without authority of law, in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which says that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The position has been reiterated by another Division Bench in Budhi Ram alias Bidhi Chand and others v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 1039 of 203 : 2005(1) Cur. L.J. (H.P.,) D.B. 532 and in Roshan Lal and others v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 1040 of 203 both decided vide judgment dated 4.1.2005 and Parkash Chand v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 84 4of 2003 decided on 12.4.2005 : 2005(2) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) D.B. 489. 5. The Apex court has also been similar view in State of U.P. and others v. Manohar, 2005(2) SCC 126. The facts of the case were somewhat similar to the facts of the case in hand. L.J. (H.P.) D.B. 489. 5. The Apex court has also been similar view in State of U.P. and others v. Manohar, 2005(2) SCC 126. The facts of the case were somewhat similar to the facts of the case in hand. It was held that the case was of utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of an individual of his property by the State authorities and was eminently a fit case for exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The plea of delay and latches was also raised on behalf of the respondents. The same has been noticed only to be rejected. The reason for rejection is that the violation of constitutional right of a citizen cannot be allowed to perpetuate on the mere ground of delay and latches. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it is ordered that respondent No. 1 shall initiate steps for acquisition of the land of the petitioner which has been utilised in the construction of Ghorna-Deothi, road, as per provision of Land Acquisition Act by 31st October, 2005 and shall complete such proceedings by 30th September, 2006. This time frame shall be strictly adhered to. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. There is no order as to costs. -