Case at a Glance
In 1994–95 the Himachal Pradesh government built the Bharoli Kalan Jejwin Salwar Marotan road in Bilaspur district over land belonging to the petitioners, who were never paid, though some other landowners on the same road were compensated. The State pleaded delay and ‘implied consent’ shown by 25 years of silence. Justice Sandeep Sharma, following Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 01 SC CK 0018 and Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 04 SC CK 0010, held that delay cannot defeat a continuing cause of action and that landowners cannot be deprived of land without due process. The State was directed to start acquisition proceedings within six weeks and pay just compensation.
The petitioners own land in Village Marotan, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur. Their land was used in 1994–95 to build the Bharoli Kalan Jejwin Salwar Marotan road. Other landowners whose land was acquired for the same road were paid compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, but the petitioners were not. Their repeated requests to begin acquisition proceedings went unanswered, and they approached the High Court under Article 226 in a batch of 19 writ petitions led by CWP No. 14444 of 2024.
The State, through the Superintending Engineer, HPPWD Bilaspur, did not dispute that the land had been used for the road. It argued delay and laches, said that although there was no written document of donation the landowners had given implied consent shown by their silence for more than 25 years, and contended that the petitioners should file civil suits, relying on State of Maharashtra v. Digambar.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the State refuse to acquire and pay for private land used for a public road decades ago on the ground of delay or the owners’ implied consent?
No Deprivation Without Due Process, Whatever the Delay
Justice Sandeep Sharma relied on Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, applied by the High Court earlier in Vir Sain. Quoting Vidya Devi, the Court said “Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action” and that “forcible dispossession of a person of his private property without following due process of law” violates both human and constitutional rights; the State “cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution”. It also cited Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 08 SC CK 0007.
On consent, the Court held that even if consent were proved it would not matter, because “land owners cannot be deprived of their land, without following due process of law.” It distinguished State of H.P. v. Rajiv, since no Section 4 notification had been issued for these petitioners’ land. Referring to State of H.P. v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986) 02 SC CK 0016, where “access to road is access to life itself” for hill residents, the Court accepted the importance of roads but held that a policy of building roads free of compensation violates Article 300A.
What the Court Actually Held
- Delay and laches cannot defeat a claim for compensation where private land was taken for a road without acquisition, because the cause of action is continuing.
- The State’s plea of implied or oral consent fails; landowners cannot be deprived of land without due process of law, and consent, even if shown, is immaterial.
- The respondents must initiate acquisition proceedings for the petitioners’ land under the relevant statute within six weeks and then award just and fair compensation, preferably within six months.
- All 19 writ petitions were allowed and pending applications disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many hill-state roads were built on private land without formal acquisition; this ruling keeps those claims alive decades later.
- It rejects the common defence that silence for years amounts to consent or donation.
- It sets a clear timeline — six weeks to start acquisition — for an administration that had ignored representations.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Landowners
- Collect jamabandi entries and proof that your land lies under the road; the State did not dispute these facts here.
- Show that others on the same road were compensated; the Court treated this as relevant.
- Delay alone will not defeat you if the land was never lawfully acquired.
For Counsel
- Rely on Vidya Devi and Sukh Dutt Ratra for the continuing-cause principle.
- Distinguish State of H.P. v. Rajiv where no Section 4 notification was issued.
- Seek a time-bound direction to initiate acquisition rather than a lump-sum award in the writ.
Key Takeaways
- Taking land for a road without acquisition violates Article 300A.
- ‘Implied consent’ through silence is no defence.
- Delay does not bar a continuing cause of action.
- Acquisition must begin within six weeks; compensation preferably within six months.
Frequently Asked Questions
The road was built over 30 years ago. Can I still claim?
In this case, yes. The Court held that delay and laches cannot be raised where the cause of action is continuing, following Vidya Devi.
What if I never objected when the road was built?
The State argued implied consent from silence, but the Court held that consent, even if proved, does not matter because land cannot be taken without due process of law.
Did the Court fix the compensation amount?
No. It directed the State to start acquisition proceedings within six weeks and then award just and fair compensation under the relevant statute.
Conclusion
This judgment adds to a consistent line of Himachal Pradesh High Court rulings applying Vidya Devi: the State’s need for roads does not permit it to skip acquisition and compensation, however old the road.
Practical takeaway: Landowners whose land went under a public road without acquisition should apply in writing for acquisition and, if ignored, seek a time-bound writ direction; long silence is not fatal.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com