The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Rajiv

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1278 of 2023

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. .. Appellants

Versus

Rajiv and Anr. .. Respondents

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the High

Court of Himachal Pradesh in CMP (M) No.1375 of 2019 in

LPA No.50 of 2020 by which the Division Bench of the High

Signature Not Verified Court has refused to condone the delay in preferring the LPA Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.02.24 16:49:43 IST Reason: against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single 2

Judge passed in CWP No.771 of 2016, the State of

Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.

2. Though the present appeal is against the impugned

order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court refusing

to condone the delay in preferring the LPA, instead of

remanding the matter to the Division Bench to decide the

appeal on merits and to consider the legality and validity of

the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Judge, we have

heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties on merits against the judgment and order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

2.1 That the respondents herein ­ original writ petitioners

filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the

High Court being CWP No.771 of 2016 and prayed for the

following reliefs:

"(i) That the respondents may be directed to produce entire record in connection with construction work of road from village Banuti to village Loharb in Tehsil and District Shimla along with entire record of the remaining portion from Loharb to Mauja Pahal Tehsil Sunni showing the process and proceeding 3

which were started for acquisition of land and for payment of amount of compensation.

(ii) That the respondent may be directed not to deprive the petitioners of their property without adopting due process of law and that they should act in accordance with law and make payment of amount of compensation as per provision law.

(iii) That in case the respondents are, not ready and willing to start and complete acquisition proceeding and make payment of amount of compensation in that event they may be directed to hand over the physical possession of the land in question to the petitioner and also they may be held liable to pay use and occupation charges from the period from 1996 to date.

(iv) Any other suitable relief as consider just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the petition may kindly be granted to petitioners.”

2.2 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners

that the land in question was utilized by the State for the

construction of Banuti to Pahal Road as far as back in the

year 1996, however, till date, no compensation in view of the

same has been paid to them. The petition was opposed by the

State by filing a reply contending inter alia that at the time

when the road was constructed through the land of the writ

petitioners, it was on their request and on the condition that

they will not claim any compensation. It was submitted that 4

however at that time no written document was executed in

this respect. It was submitted in the reply that due to this

reason the construction work of the road was completed

without acquisition proceedings by the State Government. It

was also submitted that the road was constructed on the

demand of public of the area including the writ petitioners. It

was submitted that had there been any truth in the plea of

the writ petitioners, the writ petitioners would have raised the

objection during the long period of 20 years.

2.3 Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

original writ petitioners as well as the State and taking into

consideration the fact that some portion of the land of the writ

petitioners has been utilized for the purpose of construction of

the road and no compensation has been paid and the land

has been used without acquiring the land under the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act, 1894’), the learned Single Judge

allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to initiate 5

the process for acquisition of the land of the writ petitioners in

accordance with law.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State preferred

the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the

High Court allowing the delay of 354 days in preferring the

LPA. By the impugned order the Division Bench of the High

Court has refused to condone the delay and consequently has

dismissed the LPA on the ground of limitation. Hence, the

present appeal.

3. Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has

materially erred in directing to initiate the process for

acquisition of the land of the original writ petitioners in a writ

petition which was filed after a period of 21 years from the

date of the use of the land in question which was used for the

construction of road.

6

3.1 It is submitted that before the learned Single Judge it

was the specific case on behalf of the State that the land was

used with the consent of the original writ petitioners and the

same was done on the request of the writ petitioners and with

condition that they will not claim compensation for the same.

3.2 Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the

learned Single Judge has been assailed mainly on the ground

of delay and laches.

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Ms. Radhika

Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

writ petitioners.

4.1 It is submitted that nothing is on record that at the

relevant time the original writ petitioners consented for the

use of their land for construction of road without claiming

compensation for the same.

4.2 It is vehemently submitted that as such initially a

notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued for

acquisition of the land at Village Tikkari on 17.05.1996, 7

however the notification so issued under Section 4 of the Act,

1894 was permitted to lapse.

4.3 It is submitted that thereafter neither the fresh

acquisition proceedings were initiated nor even the

compensation with respect to the land used for construction

of road has been paid.

4.4 It is submitted that the State on the ground of delay and

laches cannot evade its legal responsibility towards those from

whom private property has been expropriated. Reliance is

placed upon the recent decision of this Court in the case of

Sukh Dutt Ratra and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

and Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 505.

4.5 Relying upon the aforesaid decision, it is further

submitted that as observed and held by this Court in the said

decision in absence of written consent to voluntarily give up

their land, the land owners are entitled to the compensation

in terms of law.

8

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the

case and when the writ petition and the claim of the original

writ petitioners to claim the compensation for the land used

for construction of the road has been opposed by the State

solely on the ground of delay and laches, we are of the opinion

that on the certain conditions which shall be considered

herein below the original writ petitioners – owners of the land

used by the State for construction of the road shall be entitled

to the compensation for their lands which have been used by

the State without acquisition under the Act, 1894.

5.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the

present case as such initially the Notification under Section 4

was issued for acquisition of the land at Village Tikkari on

17.05.1996. However thereafter the notification so issued

under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was permitted to lapse.

Therefore, 17.05.1996 can be directed to be treated as a

deemed acquisition on that day and the original landowners

may be awarded the compensation considering the market 9

price as on 17.05.1996, however with all other statutory

benefits excluding the interest from 17.05.1996 till the writ

petition was filed before the High Court. If the aforesaid order

is passed in exercise of this Court’s extra ordinary jurisdiction

under Articles 136 & 142 of the Constitution, the same can be

said to be just and proper and doing the complete justice

between the parties.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,

present appeal stands disposed of by directing that

17.05.1996 be treated as the deemed date of acquisition

under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and the original owners/writ

petitioners shall be entitled to the compensation considering

the market price of the land in question used by the State for

construction of the road as on 17.05.1996. However,

considering the fact that there was a huge delay of 20 years in

filing the writ petition before the High Court, we direct that

though the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to all the

statutory benefits which may be available under the Act, 1894

from 17.05.1996, however they shall not be entitled to any 10

interest under the Act, 1894 from 17.05.1996 to the date of

filing of the writ petition.

Now the State/appropriate authority to calculate the

amount of compensation as above after giving an opportunity

to the original writ petitioners to lead the evidence on the

market price as on 17.05.1996 and thereafter to make the

payment of compensation as above within a period of 2

months from the date of actual calculation of the amount of

compensation. However, the entire exercise shall be

completed within a period of six months from today.

Present appeal stands allowed/disposed of in terms of

the above.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case

there shall be no order as to costs.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi, February 24, 2023