Dismissed

State of Hp and Others v. Shyam Lal

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jul 2024RSA/105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed against lower court decrees granting a mandatory injunction for land acquisition and compensation. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the State utilized the land without acquisition or consent, relying on a continuing cause of action and constitutional property rights.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The lower court judgments and decrees directing acquisition and compensation were affirmed.

State of Hp and Others Vs Shyam Lal — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:4284

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

RSA No. 105 of 2024 Decided on: 01.07.2024 State of Himachal Pradesh and others .…Appellants

¶4

Versus Shyam Lal …Respondent Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the appellants : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Ajinder Mehta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶7

By way of this appeal, the appellant-State has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed and the appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court was dismissed by learned First Appellate Court.

¶8

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below as also the record of the case.

¶9

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

¶11

The suit filed by the plaintiff was to the effect that he was exclusive owner of the suit property, measuring 3-19-09 bighas, comprised in Mauza Stahali/49, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. which was utilized by the State in the course of construction of ‘Pungh-Ghanghnoo’ road, without acquiring the land in accordance with law and without compensating the plaintiff. The defence of the State was that the road was constructed with the consent of the parties, including the plaintiff and further the same was also barred by limitation.

¶12

Learned Trial Court decreed the suit by holding that as admittedly the land of the plaintiff stood utilized by the State without acquiring the same in accordance with law and without compensating the plaintiff and as the defendant had failed to demonstrate that the utilization of the land was with the consent of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for the reliefs prayed for. On the issue of delay and laches, learned Trial Court relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 4709 , and held that in such like cases, cause of action was continuing one. Learned Trial Court thus decreed the suit by directing the defendants to initiate acquisition proceedings and acquire the land of the plaintiff in accordance with law.

¶13

¶14

The appeal filed by the State against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court was dismissed by learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court also held that in view of the fact that the land of the plaintiff stood utilized for the purpose of construction of the road in question without the consent of the plaintiff, the State was bound to compensate him. On the issue of delay and laches, learned Appellate Court also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, AIR 2020 SC 4709 .

¶15

Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal. A perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, demonstrates that concurrent findings stand recorded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants-State to the effect that the land of the plaintiff was utilized for the purpose of construction of road in issue without acquiring the same and without compensating the plaintiff. In fact, this particular fact stood admitted by the defendants whose defence was that the land was utilized with the consent of the parties. Record demonstrates that no evidence was led by the defendant to prove that the land was utilized by them with the consent of the plaintiff. That being the case, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by learned Trial Court as well as

¶16

¶17

learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof the State has been directed to acquire the land of the plaintiff in accordance with law and compensate him. Right to property being a constitutional right, the State cannot usurp the property of an individual without compensating the land owner. This is settled position of law by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

¶18

As far as the issue of limitation is concerned, therein also, concurrently it stood held by learned Courts below in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (supra) that the issue being the continuing cause, the same is not hit by delay and laches.

¶19

At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that another land owner similarly situated as the respondent herein, whose land was also utilized by the State for the purpose of construction of road in question, had also filed a civil suit seeking compensation. His suit was allowed and the appeal filed by the State against same was dismissed by learned first Appellate Court. The State approached this Court by way of RSA No. 90 of 2024 against the findings returned by learned Courts below, which RSA stood dismissed by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.06.2024. This fact also could not be disputed

¶20

¶21

by learned Deputy Advocate General. Therefore also, this Court has no reason to interfere with the findings returned by learned Courts below.

¶22

In view of above reasoning, as this Court does not find this to be a fit case wherein any substantial question of law is involved, this appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶24

July 01, 2024 (narender)

State of Hp and Others v. Shyam Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Others v. Shyam Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Achhar Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Oriental Insurance Co. Vs Hari Singh

Surjeet Singh Vs the State of Hp

Kamla Devi Vs Sheela Devi and others

Justice M.R. Verma Vs Pankaj Rai Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Shimla -1 and Anr.