/2023 INSC 0118/
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
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