Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1278 of 2023
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. .. Appellants
Versus
Rajiv and Anr. .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh in CMP (M) No.1375 of 2019 in
LPA No.50 of 2020 by which the Division Bench of the High
Court has refused to condone the delay in preferring the LPA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.02.24
16:49:43 IST
Reason:
against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single
2
Judge passed in CWP No.771 of 2016, the State of
Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
2. Though the present appeal is against the impugned
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court refusing
to condone the delay in preferring the LPA, instead of
remanding the matter to the Division Bench to decide the
appeal on merits and to consider the legality and validity of
the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Judge, we have
heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties on merits against the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
2.1 That the respondents herein original writ petitioners
filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the
High Court being CWP No.771 of 2016 and prayed for the
following reliefs:
"(i) That the respondents may be directed to
produce entire record in connection with construction
work of road from village Banuti to village Loharb in
Tehsil and District Shimla along with entire record of
the remaining portion from Loharb to Mauja Pahal
Tehsil Sunni showing the process and proceeding
3
which were started for acquisition of land and for
payment of amount of compensation.
(ii) That the respondent may be directed not to
deprive the petitioners of their property without
adopting due process of law and that they should act
in accordance with law and make payment of amount
of compensation as per provision law.
(iii) That in case the respondents are, not ready
and willing to start and complete acquisition
proceeding and make payment of amount of
compensation in that event they may be directed to
hand over the physical possession of the land in
question to the petitioner and also they may be held
liable to pay use and occupation charges from the
period from 1996 to date.
(iv) Any other suitable relief as consider just and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the
petition may kindly be granted to petitioners.”
2.2 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners
that the land in question was utilized by the State for the
construction of Banuti to Pahal Road as far as back in the
year 1996, however, till date, no compensation in view of the
same has been paid to them. The petition was opposed by the
State by filing a reply contending inter alia that at the time
when the road was constructed through the land of the writ
petitioners, it was on their request and on the condition that
they will not claim any compensation. It was submitted that
4
however at that time no written document was executed in
this respect. It was submitted in the reply that due to this
reason the construction work of the road was completed
without acquisition proceedings by the State Government. It
was also submitted that the road was constructed on the
demand of public of the area including the writ petitioners. It
was submitted that had there been any truth in the plea of
the writ petitioners, the writ petitioners would have raised the
objection during the long period of 20 years.
2.3 Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original writ petitioners as well as the State and taking into
consideration the fact that some portion of the land of the writ
petitioners has been utilized for the purpose of construction of
the road and no compensation has been paid and the land
has been used without acquiring the land under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act, 1894’), the learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to initiate
5
the process for acquisition of the land of the writ petitioners in
accordance with law.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State preferred
the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the
High Court allowing the delay of 354 days in preferring the
LPA. By the impugned order the Division Bench of the High
Court has refused to condone the delay and consequently has
dismissed the LPA on the ground of limitation. Hence, the
present appeal.
3. Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has
materially erred in directing to initiate the process for
acquisition of the land of the original writ petitioners in a writ
petition which was filed after a period of 21 years from the
date of the use of the land in question which was used for the
construction of road.
6
3.1 It is submitted that before the learned Single Judge it
was the specific case on behalf of the State that the land was
used with the consent of the original writ petitioners and the
same was done on the request of the writ petitioners and with
condition that they will not claim compensation for the same.
3.2 Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge has been assailed mainly on the ground
of delay and laches.
4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Ms. Radhika
Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
writ petitioners.
4.1 It is submitted that nothing is on record that at the
relevant time the original writ petitioners consented for the
use of their land for construction of road without claiming
compensation for the same.
4.2 It is vehemently submitted that as such initially a
notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued for
acquisition of the land at Village Tikkari on 17.05.1996,
7
however the notification so issued under Section 4 of the Act,
1894 was permitted to lapse.
4.3 It is submitted that thereafter neither the fresh
acquisition proceedings were initiated nor even the
compensation with respect to the land used for construction
of road has been paid.
4.4 It is submitted that the State on the ground of delay and
laches cannot evade its legal responsibility towards those from
whom private property has been expropriated. Reliance is
placed upon the recent decision of this Court in the case of
Sukh Dutt Ratra and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 505.
4.5 Relying upon the aforesaid decision, it is further
submitted that as observed and held by this Court in the said
decision in absence of written consent to voluntarily give up
their land, the land owners are entitled to the compensation
in terms of law.
8
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the
case and when the writ petition and the claim of the original
writ petitioners to claim the compensation for the land used
for construction of the road has been opposed by the State
solely on the ground of delay and laches, we are of the opinion
that on the certain conditions which shall be considered
herein below the original writ petitioners – owners of the land
used by the State for construction of the road shall be entitled
to the compensation for their lands which have been used by
the State without acquisition under the Act, 1894.
5.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the
present case as such initially the Notification under Section 4
was issued for acquisition of the land at Village Tikkari on
17.05.1996. However thereafter the notification so issued
under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was permitted to lapse.
Therefore, 17.05.1996 can be directed to be treated as a
deemed acquisition on that day and the original landowners
may be awarded the compensation considering the market
9
price as on 17.05.1996, however with all other statutory
benefits excluding the interest from 17.05.1996 till the writ
petition was filed before the High Court. If the aforesaid order
is passed in exercise of this Court’s extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Articles 136 & 142 of the Constitution, the same can be
said to be just and proper and doing the complete justice
between the parties.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
present appeal stands disposed of by directing that
17.05.1996 be treated as the deemed date of acquisition
under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and the original owners/writ
petitioners shall be entitled to the compensation considering
the market price of the land in question used by the State for
construction of the road as on 17.05.1996. However,
considering the fact that there was a huge delay of 20 years in
filing the writ petition before the High Court, we direct that
though the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to all the
statutory benefits which may be available under the Act, 1894
from 17.05.1996, however they shall not be entitled to any
10
interest under the Act, 1894 from 17.05.1996 to the date of
filing of the writ petition.
Now the State/appropriate authority to calculate the
amount of compensation as above after giving an opportunity
to the original writ petitioners to lead the evidence on the
market price as on 17.05.1996 and thereafter to make the
payment of compensation as above within a period of 2
months from the date of actual calculation of the amount of
compensation. However, the entire exercise shall be
completed within a period of six months from today.
Present appeal stands allowed/disposed of in terms of
the above.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case
there shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi,
February 24, 2023