The High Court dismissed appeals by the State challenging orders directing acquisition of land used for road construction without compensation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the plea of delay is inadmissible in such cases and that dispossession without due process violates Article 300A.
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.
1
( 2024:HHC:9017-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
LPA Nos.289, 290 & 291 of 2024 Reserved on:11.09.2024 Pronounced on:20.09.2024
| LPA No.289 of 2024 |
|---|
| State of H.P. & Others …Appellants |
| Versus |
| Basti Ram & Another …Respondents |
| __________________________________________________________ LPA No.290 of 2024 |
| State of H.P. & Others …Appellants Versus |
| Sarup Lal Upadhya …Respondent |
| __________________________________________________________ LPA No.291 of 2024 |
| State of H.P. & Others …Appellants Versus |
| Prashant Gupta …Respondent _________________________________________________________ Coram **:_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.** |
| Whether approved for reporting? |
| LPA No.289 of 2024 |
| For the appellants : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. |
| For the respondents : Nemo. |
| LPA No.290 of 2024 |
| For the appellants : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. |
| For the respondent : Nemo. |
2
( 2024:HHC:9017-DB )
LPA No.291 of 2024 For the appellants : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Nemo.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice .
CMP(M) Nos.1237, 1256 & 1291 of 2024
Applications for condonation of delay are allowed, since the same are not opposed.
LPA Nos.289, 290 & 291 of 2024
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.
on the ground of delay and laches, and also on the pretext that while the road was being constructed, the respondents had not raised any objection, but had voluntarily donated the land for construction of the road.
by placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vidya
3
( 2024:HHC:9017-DB )
Devi vs . State of Himachal Pradesh and others1 , and Sukh Dutt Ratra
vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others2 , wherein, the Supreme Court had held that the plea of delay 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) September 20, 2024 Judge (Yashwant)
2 (2022) 7 SCC 508
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plea of delay and laches can be raised where the State utilized land for roads without acquisition or compensation.
Whether oral consent or voluntary donation constitutes a valid defense against unlawful land acquisition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and othersRelied on¶17
(2020) 2 SCC 569 · Who else cites this
Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & othersRelied on¶17
(2022) 7 SCC 508 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of H.P. & Others
Basti Ram & Another
Sarup Lal Upadhya
Prashant Gupta
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
