Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 584 (HP)

Bangalu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2013-06-21

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner is owner in possession of the land bearing Khata Khatauni No. 39 min/44 min, Khasra No. 1052 measuring 6-18-7 bighas situated in Mohal Burahali/ 168, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. The respondent-State has constructed a road called the Swaraghat-Tata-Leda road in the year 2002. The respondents have covered a portion of Khasra No.1052 of the land of petitioner for the purpose of construction of road almost in the middle of this Khasra number measuring 0-10-5 bighas. The Field Kanungo has also issued Aks-Tatima Sajra to this effect vide Annexure P-2. 2. The reply has been filed by the respondent- State. It is admitted that the road was constructed and the land of the petitioner was utilized. Case of the respondent-State, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner has not raised any objection at the time of construction of road. 3. Mr. G.R. Palsra has vehemently argued that the petitioner could not be deprived of his property save and except in accordance with law. He has also argued that the land of the petitioner is required to be acquired as per the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has not objected to when the road was constructed and there is delay of eight years in filing the petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings. 6. It is admitted case that the petitioner was owner of Khasra No.1052. A road has been constructed in the middle of Khasra No.1052 as per Annexure P-2 in the year 2002. The petitioner has not been paid any compensation. There is no material place on record by the respondent-State that the petitioner has given his assurance for the construction of the road. The respondent-State could not utilize the land of the petitioner without paying him compensation. It is true that the roads are constructed for public purpose, but it is equally important that whenever the land is utilized, citizens should be compensated for the same. The delay of eight years cannot be treated inordinate delay in challenging the unconstitutional action of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been deprived of his right to get the compensation for utilization of the land by the State for the construction of the road. The delay of eight years cannot be treated inordinate delay in challenging the unconstitutional action of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been deprived of his right to get the compensation for utilization of the land by the State for the construction of the road. The rights of third parties have not been intervened between 2000 till date. The delay is very vital where the rights of third party have intervened. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to acquire the land of the petitioner as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and complete the process within a period of eight months from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.