31 years after land taken in Himachal, court steps in: ‘Can’t deprive anyone of property’

The dispute stemmed from a road built in 1995 through the respondents’ land in Bilaspur district without formal acquisition or compensation. While the landowners said they were repeatedly denied compensation, the State claimed the road was constructed with their verbal consent and that the claim was barred by delay.

Justice Romesh Sharma upheld compensation for land used to build the Panol-Jhandutta-Nand-Nagraon road without acquisition. (Image enhanced using AI)

Case

The respondents alleged that the state built the Panol-Jhandutta-Nand-Nagraon road through their land in Bilaspur district without acquiring it or paying compensation. While adjoining landowners were compensated, they claimed they were repeatedly denied payment despite their land being used. They also accused officials of threatening further damage to their land, crops and trees.

Contesting the suit, the state argued that the gram panchayat had constructed the road in 1995 with the landowners’ verbal consent and that it took over maintenance in 2002 after HRTC buses began plying on the route. It also contended that the compensation claim was hopelessly delayed and therefore not maintainable.

On April 6, 2024, the Civil Judge, Jhandutta, partly decreed the suit, directing the State to pay compensation with statutory benefits, including solatium and interest, besides Rs 10,000 as litigation costs, treating it as a case of deemed acquisition. The District Judge, Bilaspur, upheld the ruling on December 3, 2024, prompting the State to file the present appeal.

Rejecting the state’s principal defence, Justice Verma observed that the government failed to produce any evidence to establish that the landowners had voluntarily consented to the construction of the road. The court noted that when asked during the hearing whether any document existed to support the plea of oral consent, the state was unable to produce one.

“No document has been appended… which may demonstrate that the present respondents had orally consented for the construction of the road in question,” the judgment noted.

Delay can’t defeat constitutional rights

• The high court held that the state could not rely on delay or limitation to avoid compensating landowners when their property had been used without acquisition.
• Observing that the respondents remained the lawful owners of the land, the court said their right to seek relief could not be defeated unless the state established title through a legally recognised process.
• The high court reiterated that a welfare state cannot invoke adverse possession or delay to legitimise its occupation of citizens’ land.
• The court also noted that a government witness admitted compensation had been paid to certain similarly placed landowners whose land had been used for the same road project.
• Justice Verma held that such a “pick and choose” approach was impermissible, observing that once compensation had been paid to similarly situated persons, the respondents could not be discriminated against.

Finding no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the high court upheld the concurrent findings of the two courts below.

The regular second appeal was dismissed, leaving intact the directions requiring the Himachal Pradesh government to pay compensation to the landowners along with statutory benefits, including solatium and interest. Pending applications were also disposed of.