State appealed against a Single Judge's direction to acquire land taken for road construction without compensation and to pay just compensation. The Division Bench held the issues covered by binding precedent on deprivation of property without due process, distinguished contrary rulings, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 2024:HHC:14468 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CMP(M) No. 502 of 2024 and LPA No. 469 of 2024.
Date of Decision : 16th December, 2024.
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Applicants/Appellants.
Versus Sher Singh alias Niku & Ors. ... .Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the Appellants/Applicants(s): Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sidharath Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent(s): Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).
CMP(M) No. 502 of 2024.
In view of the averments made in the application as also on
account of non opposition thereto, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
LPA No. 469 of 2024
notice on behalf of the respondents.
…2… ( 2024:HHC:14468 )
of the Constitution of India. Thus, the principle that respondents could not be deprived of their property save by the authority of law, has been
…3… ( 2024:HHC:14468 )
upheld.
…4… ( 2024:HHC:14468 )
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.”
…5… ( 2024:HHC:14468 )
24. And with regards to the contention of delay 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 violative22 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.
26. In view of the above discussion, in view of this court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution, the State is hereby directed to treat the subject
…6… ( 2024:HHC:14468 )
lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants in the same terms as the order of the reference court dated 04.10.2005 in Land Ref. Petition No. 10-LAC/4 of 2004 (and consolidated matters). The Respondent-State is directed, consequently to ensure that the appropriate Land Acquisition Collector computes the compensation, and disburses it to the appellants, within four months from today. The appellants would also be entitled to consequential benefits of solatium, and interest on all sums payable under law w.e.f 16.10.2001 (i.e. date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act), till the date of the impugned judgment, i.e. 12.09.2013.”
Division Bench of this Court while deciding a bunch of matters vide judgment dated 23.07.2024 with LPA No. 24 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. & Ors vs. Baldev Singh & Anr., as lead case and in light of the judgments on the subject more particularly in Sukh Dutt Ratra and Vidya Devi (supra) has issued directions to the State to initiate acquisition proceedings with respect to land belonging to the affected persons and pay compensation in accordance with law.
…7… ( 2024:HHC:14468 )
dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 in
following terms:-
2. We have come across several matters wherein the State of Himachal Pradesh has challenged the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, thereby directing the compensation to be paid to the respondent(s).
3. The writ petitioner(s) has approached the High Court with a grievance that though the possession of their lands were taken for road construction, they did not receive compensation.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that the State cannot take possession of citizen land without pay the compensation.
5. Although the right to property is no longer considered a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right. The State cannot be permitted to acquire citizen land without paying appropriate compensation.
6. In these circumstances, it would have been justified in dismissed the special leave petition(s) with exemplary cost. However, we refrain from doing so now and simply dismiss these special leave petitions.”
judgment dated 24.2.2023, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 1278 of 2023, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
vs. Rajiv And Another . After going through the judgment so referred, we have not found a view different than the view taken by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra, save and except, that in Civil Appeal
No. 1278 of 2023 the respondents therein were not held entitled to the
interest under the Land Acquisition Act from the date of notification
…8… ( 2024:HHC:14468 )
under Section 4 of the said Act in that case till the filing of the writ petition.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 16th December, 2024. (jai)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State can be compelled to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay compensation where land was used for road construction without acquisition?
Whether delay and laches or alleged consent bars the claimants' compensation claim?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.Relied on¶9
(2020)2 SCC 569 · Who else cites this
Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and othersFollowed¶9
(2022)7 SCC 508 · Who else cites this
Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and othersReferred¶6
(2020)9 SCC 356 · Who else cites this
Shankar Dass vs. State of H.P.Distinguished¶8
CWP No. 1966 of 2010, decided on 02.03.2013
State of Maharashtra vs. DigambarReferred¶8
(1995)4 SCC 683 · Who else cites this
State of H.P. & Ors vs. Baldev Singh & Anr.Relied on¶10
LPA No. 24 of 2019
State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Upender KumarRelied on¶11
LPA No. 54 of 2017 / SLP(Civil) Diary No. 49057 of 2024
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs. Rajiv And AnotherDistinguished¶12
Civil Appeal No. 1278 of 2023
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of H.P. & Ors.
Sher Singh alias Niku
& Ors.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
