Landowners sued the State seeking compulsory acquisition and compensation for road built through their land in 1981-82; both courts below dismissed the suits as time-barred. The High Court held Vidya Devi rested on extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction unavailable in ordinary civil suits and dismissed the second appeals.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
RSA No.141, 138 and 143 of 2018 Reserved on: 20.04.2024 Decided on: 03.05.2024
____________________________________________________ 1 RSA No. 141 of 2018
Inder Singh and others ..Appellants Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents. 2. RSA No. 138 of 2018 Julfu and others ..Appellants Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents. 3. RSA No. 143 of 2018 Vidhi Chand .Appellants Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice
In these three second Appeals, the suits filed by the
respective appellants/plaintiffs had been dismissed by the trial court
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
and the said judgment has been confirmed by the lower appellate court on the ground that they are barred by limitation and holding that they had approached the Court long after cause of action accrued to them individually.
all the three cases was laid in 1981-1982 on the demand of inhabitants
of the village and other people of the area and claimed that the land had been donated by the land owners for the road without claiming any compensation. It is also asserted that the respective appellants and their predecessors did not object for the carving out of the road at that time and gave implied consent for that purpose. It is specifically alleged that the suits are hopelessly time barred.
“Whether on account of mis-appreciation of the pleadings and law and also misreading of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by both Courts below are erroneous and, as such, the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable?”
7) Thereafter another question of law was framed by this Court on
05.04.2024 as under:
“ Whether the Courts below were right in holding that the Suits filed by the appellants were barred by limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case?”
The judgment in Vidya Devi ( 2 supra)
to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
used the land in the ownership of appellant for construction of the road in 1967-1968. It contended that it was in continues possession of
2 (2020) 2 SCC 569
3 (2022) 7 SCC 508
the property since then for more than 42 years, that it acquired title through adverse possession, that the Writ petition was not maintainable and she had to file a Civil Suit.
“ 10.6. We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the High Court, that since it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to “adverse” possession. The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case.
10.7. 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. 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. In Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors.,10 this Court while dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows :
“There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under Article 9 P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. (1975) 1 SCC 152. 10 (2013) 1 SCC 353. 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether. Functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the Appellants without any sanction of law. The Appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode.”
11. In the present case, the Appellant being an illiterate person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The Appellant has been divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the Appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case is one where the demand for
justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law. We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, and direct the State to pay compensation to the Appellant.”
(emphasis supplied)
the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India.
The Sukh Dutt Ratra case ( 3 supra)
reiterated in Sukh Dutt Ratra case (supra 3) as well, where the facts are identical.
of the land and without paying any compensation to the appellants.
compensation for the deprivation of the property or initiation of the acquisition proceedings under the land Acquisition Act.
and another4 , held that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for determination on the starting point of limitation, which cannot be adjudicated in the Writ proceedings. The High Court disposed of the Writ petition with liberty to file a Civil Suit in accordance with law.
The Consideration by the Court
4 2013 SCC Online HP 681
three cases that the utilization of the property of the appellants for construction of a road by the State had happened long back in 19811982, but the suits had been filed on various dates in 2012 and 2014, respectively.
road which was completed in the year 1981-1982; the injury was inflicted and completed with the construction of the road; the appellants or their predecessors were completely dispossessed and ousted from the suit land in 1981-1982 with the construction of the road; and so it cannot be a continuing wrong, but it was a wrong which was completed at the time of construction of the road.
slept over their right for long period of time exceeding 30 years.
both the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court in all the three cases, and also having regard to the fact that this Court is not exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. constitutional jurisdiction and is only exercising ordinary civil jurisdiction, I see no reason to interfere with such findings. Therefore, substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants and all the Appeals are dismissed.
( M.S. Ramachandra Rao ) Chief Justice
May 03, 2024
(priti)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suits for compensation/mandatory injunction were barred by limitation when the road was built in 1981-82 but suits filed in 2012-2014?
Do the constitutional-jurisdiction principles in Vidya Devi apply to suits decided in ordinary civil jurisdiction?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidya Devi vs. The State of Himachal PradeshExplained¶13
(2020) 2 SCC 569 · Who else cites this
Sukh Dutt Ratra and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and othersReferred¶18
(2022) 7 SCC 508 · Who else cites this
Shankar Dass vs. State of H.P and anotherReferred¶17
2013 SCC Online HP 681 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Inder Singh and others
Julfu and others
Vidhi Chand
State of H.P
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
