Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs Neem Chand on 9 October, 2023
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA No.56 of 2017
Decided on: 09.10.2023
.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ......Appellants
Versus
Neem Chand ......Respondents
____________________________________________________________
Coram:
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
rt
For the appellants : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta and Mr. Pranay Pratap
Singh, Additional Advocate Generals.
For the respondent : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has directed acquisition of the land of the respondent, which was admittedly utilized for laying a road under the "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna"
(PMGSY) Scheme in the year 2006-07, rejecting the plea of the respondents-appellants that under the said Scheme, there is no provision for acquisition of the land, and by applying the law declared by the Supreme Court and this Court cited in his order. The learned Single Judge also discussed the aspect of delay and laches and by relying on the ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2023 20:35:48 :::CIS 2 judgment of the Supreme Court in K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs vs. State of Karnataka and others1, held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not bound by .
any strict rule of limitation, and if substantial issues of public importance touching upon fairness of Government action do arise, the delayed approach to the Court would not stand in the way of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court.
of
3. Though, counsel for the appellants sought to contend that there is no need for acquisition of land, if the construction of road is made under the rt PMGSY Scheme, admittedly, such a contention has been rejected by a Full Bench of this Court in LPA no.33 of 2021 vide order dt. 03.11.2022, in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs. Sita Ram Sharma, and had declared that a person whose land has been utilized for construction of road under the said Scheme, is also entitled for compensation unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the land was voluntarily donated or given by him willingly with free will and consent for construction of such road.
4. In the instant case, no material is placed by the appellants-State to prove that the respondent had voluntarily donated or given the land in question willingly with free will for construction of the road in question.
1((2016) 3 SCC 422 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2023 20:35:48 :::CIS 3
5. Counsel for the respondent has also brought to our notice the fact that an Award no.6 of 2022 has been passed by the Land Acquisition .
Collector, HPPWD, (CZ), Mandi, on 22.02.2022, for the subject land, awarding compensation of Rs.23,17,365/-, which was also paid to the respondent, and that the respondent has also sought a Reference to the authority constituted under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation of and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013).
rt
6. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
Chief Justice
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
October 09, 2023 Judge
(Yashwant)
::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2023 20:35:48 :::CIS