Dismissed

State of Hp and Another v. Hari Ram and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jul 2024RSA/237/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the State's appeal against lower courts' judgments decreeing a suit for possession and mandatory injunction. The appeal challenged orders directing the State to acquire land used for a public road without proper compensation and to pay assessed amounts lacking sufficient evidence of plaintiff consent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; adjudications by Courts below were upheld; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

State of Hp and Another Vs Hari Ram and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

¶2

SHIMLA

¶3

RSA No. 237 of 2020 Decided on 02^nd July, 2024 The Government of Himachal Pradesh and another

¶4

Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Hari Ram and others

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes

¶10

For the appellants: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

For the respondents: Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a) to 1(g) and respondents No.2(i) to 2(iii), 3 and 4.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶13

By way of this appeal, the appellants-State has challenged the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, in terms whereof, the suit for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the defendants/respondents was decreed by the learned trial Court

¶14

by directing the defendants to take steps for the acquisition of the land of the plaintiffs, which was used for construction of

¶15

¶16

public road by the defendants and disburse the assessed compensation and the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was dismissed.

¶17

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction on the ground that they were owners in possession of land comprised in Khasra No.548/480/336 and 549/480/336 two kitas, Khata/Khatauni No.88/89 min, measuring 3-12 bighas situated in village Dhrarshani, P.O. Rishikesh, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. As per them, defendants constructed Auhar-Kohina road by utilizing the land of the plaintiffs without their consent and permission. According to the plaintiffs, a notification for the acquisition of land was duly issued by the Government, but, thereafter, no efforts were made by them to compensate the plaintiffs. It was in these circumstances that they came to the Court. The defendants, though did not dispute the factum of the utilization of the land of the plaintiffs for the construction of the road, but, as per them, the construction was carried out by the defendants on the request and oral consent of the land owners.

¶18

¶19

The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court by holding that the defendants had failed to demonstrate that the land of the plaintiff was utilized by them on consensual basis. It held that admittedly no written consent was produced by the defendants and it was also a matter of record that notification was issued for the acquisition of the land, which elapsed on account of the fault of the defendants. In this backdrop, it decreed the suit by holding that as the road was already in existence and was being utilized as a public road; therefore, defendants were directed to take steps for the acquisition of the land as per law and compensate the land owners. In appeal, these findings were upheld. Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal.

¶20

Having heard learned Additional Advocate General and having gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the leaned Courts below, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the present appeal and further no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

¶21

There are concurrent findings returned by the learned Courts below that the land of the plaintiffs was utilized for the purpose of the construction of the road in issue. The

¶22

¶23

factum of the utilization of the land in fact has been admitted by the defendants. The stand of the defendants that this was done on the request and oral request of the plaintiffs has not been substantiated by them by bringing on record any cogent evidence. Record also demonstrates that a notification was issued for the acquisition of the land, but the same was not taken to its logical conclusion and it lapsed. It is settled law that the State cannot be allowed to utilize the property of an individual without compensating him in accordance with law. It fact, none can be allowed to utilize the property of the other except in accordance with law. The construction of the road be it for any purpose, without the consent of the land owners, cannot be legitimized simply on the plea that the act of the State is in larger public interest. Compensation of the land owner for the utilization of his land, for the construction of even a public road, is a must, until and unless the land owner parts away with the land in favour of the Department concerned in a legally acceptable manner.

¶24

Accordingly, as the adjudications made by both the learned Courts below are pure and simple adjudications on

¶25

¶26

facts which are not perverse and clearly borne out from the record and further as this Court does not finds any substantial question of law involved in this appeal, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed

¶27

of.

¶28

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶29

July 02, 2024 (Vinod)

State of Hp and Another v. Hari Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Another v. Hari Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwant Kaur Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Ashwani Kumar

Raveena Bibi and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Hem Raj Vs Hrtc and Another

Shiv Chand Vs State of Hp

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others