Appeals against orders in writ petitions challenging unauthorized road construction on private land. The court held delay and laches pleas untenable in such matters and dismissed appeals.
All appeals dismissed. No costs awarded.
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.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8859 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
| LPA No.249 of 2024 a/w connected matters. Reserved on 09/10/09/2024 Decided on: 20.09.2024 |
||
|---|---|---|
| LPA 249 of 2024. State of HP and others Amar Singh and others |
Versus |
...Appellants ...Respondents |
| _______________________ LPA 250 of 2024. State of HP and others |
_______ | ________________________ ...Appellants |
Locky Devi and others |
Versus | ...Respondents |
| _______________________ LPA 253 of 2024. State of HP and others |
_______ | _________________________ ...Appellants |
Garja Ram and others |
Versus | ...Respondents |
| _______________________ LPA 258 of 2024. State of HP and others |
_______ | _________________________ ...Appellants |
| Versus | ||
| Sanjay Gupta | ...Respondent |
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant(s): Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Sushant Kaprate and Mr. Pranay Partap Singh, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Arsh Rattan, Mr. Sidharth Jalta and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General.
2
For the respondents: Mr. Jagannath, Advocate, for respondents in LPA No. 253 of 2024. Nemo for respondents in other LPAs.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.
In all these cases, the land of the respondents had been utilized by the appellants for constructing roads without acquiring the same and without paying any compensation to the respondents. 2. Therefore, the respondents approached this Court and sought directions to the appellants to acquire their lands and pay them compensation in accordance with law in a time bound manner.
1 (2020) 2 SCC 569
2(2020) 7 SCC 508
3
and laches cannot be raised in the case of a continuing cause of action, especially in land acquisition matters, where acts of the State shock the conscience of the Court; and that to forcibly dispossess a person of his private property without following due process of law, would be violative of a “Human Right” and also a “Constitutional Right” under Article 300A of the Constitution of India; and the plea of oral consent to the acquisition has no legal sanction and cannot be countenanced.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge
September 20 , 2024 (cm Thakur)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether plea of delay and laches can be raised against the State in a continuing cause of action regarding unauthorized land acquisition.
Whether voluntary donation of land by respondents constitutes valid consent to exercise private property rights without compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and othersRelied on¶11
(2020) 2 SCC 569 · Who else cites this
Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & othersRelied on¶11
(2020) 7 SCC 508 · Who else cites this
State of HP and others
Amar Singh and others
Locky Devi and others
Garja Ram and others
Sanjay Gupta
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
