SUKH DUTT RATRA & Anr. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & Ors.

#2. The State has merely averred to the appellants’ alleged verbal consent or the lack of objection, but has not placed any material on record to substantiate this plea. Further, the State was unable to produce any evidence indicating that the land of the appellants had been taken over or acquired in the manner known to law, or that they had ever paid any compensation. This was the State’s position and subsequent findings of the High Court in 2007 as well, in the other writ proceedings. [Para 21][1052-F-H]

#3. The State’s contention that since the property is not adjoining to that of the appellants, it disentitles them from claiming benefit on the ground of parity cannot be accepted. Despite it not being adjoining (which is admitted in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellants), it is clear that the subject land was acquired for the same reason – construction of the Narag Fagla Road, in 1972-73, and much like the claimants before the reference court, these appellants too were illegally dispossessed without following due process of law thus resulting in violation of Article 31 and warranting the High Court’s intervention under Article 226 jurisdiction. In the absence of written consent to voluntarily give A B C D E F G H SUKH DUTT RATRA & ANR. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. 1043 up their land, the appellants were entitled to compensation in terms of law. The forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300- A. [Paras 22 and 25][1052-H; 1053-A-C; 1054-D] Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 569- relied on.

#4. In view of this court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution, the State is hereby directed to treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants in the same terms as the order of the reference court dated 04.10.2005. The Respondent-State is directed, consequently to ensure that the appropriate Land Acquisition Collector computes the compensation, and disburses it to the appellants, within four months. The appellants would also be entitled to consequential benefits of solatium, and interest on all sums payable under law w.e.f 16.10.2001 (i.e. date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act), till the date of the impugned judgment, i.e. 12.09.2013. Given the disregard for the appellants’ fundamental rights which has caused them to approach this court and receive remedy decades after the act of dispossession, the Respondent- State is directed to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants. [Paras 26 and 27][1054-E-G; 1055-A-B] Bishandas v. State of Punjab [1962] 2 SCR 69; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service [1969] 1 SCR 808 – followed. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [2005] Supp (3) SCR 388; N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2011] 12 SCR 191; Jilubhai Nanbhai Kahchar v. State of Gujarat [1994] Supp 1 SCR 807 – relied on. A B C D E F G H 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 2 S.C.R. A B C D Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) [2012] 13 SCR; Air India Ltd. vs. Vishal Capoor [2005] Supp 3 SCR 670; State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar [1995] Supp 1 SCR 492; State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [1964] 6 SCR 261; Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2014) 11 SCC 351; Wazir Chand vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh [1955] 1 SCR 408; State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Dharmander Prasad Singh and Ors. [1989] 1 SCR 176 – referred to. Entick vs. Carrington [1765] EWHC (KB) 198 – referred to. Case Law Reference (2005) 2 SCC 126 [2012] 13 SCR referred to referred to [2005] Supp 3 SCR 670 referred to (2020) 2 SCC 569 relied on. [1995] Supp 1 SCR 492 referred to E [1964] 6 SCR 261 (2014) 11 SCC 351 [ 1955] 1 SCR 408 [1962] 2 SCR 69 [1989] 1SCR 176 [1969] 1 SCR 808 [2005] Supp 3 SCR 388 (2008) 15 SCC 517 [2011] 12 SCR 191 [1994] Supp 1 SCR 807 F G H referred to referred to referred to followed referred to followed relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 6 Para 6 Para 8 Para 9 Para 10 Para 10 Para 10 Para 14 Para 15 Para 15 Para 18 Para 25 Para 25 Para 25 Para 25 SUKH DUTT RATRA & ANR. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. 1045 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2773 A of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2013 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No.7873 of 2011. Sharan Thakur, Mahesh Thakur, Siddhartha Thakur, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Ms. Biswendra Singh, Advs. for the Appellants. Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Akshay C. Shrivastava, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

#1. Delay condoned and leave granted. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally. The appellants are aggrieved by final judgment1 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, disposing their writ petition, with liberty to institute a civil suit in accordance with law. Facts

#2. Sukh Dutt Ratra and Bhagat Ram (hereafter ‘appellants’) claim to be owners of land2 situated at Mauzal Sarol Basach, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaour, Himachal Pradesh (hereafter ‘subject land’). The Respondent-State utilised the subject land and adjoining lands for the construction of the ‘Narag Fagla Road’ in 1972-73, but allegedly no land acquisition proceedings were initiated, nor compensation given to the appellants or owners of the adjoining land.

#3. Pursuant to a judgment by the Himachal Pradesh High Court3 (hereafter ‘High Court’) directing the State to initiate land acquisition proceedings, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter ‘Act’) was issued on 16.10.2001 (published on 30.10.2001) and the award was passed on 20.12.2001 fixing compensation at 30,000 per bigha. Proceedings under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, were initiated by ten neighbouring land owners (Mata 1 Dated 12.09.2013 in CWP No. 7873/2011. 2 Khasra Nos. 141, 232/142, 143, 144, 145, 281/267, 206/147, 158, 268/149, 282/267, and Khasra Nos. 201/138, 242/146, 209/154, 158, 211/163, 16/172, further Khasra Nos. 50, 51, 89, 278/92, 280/93, and 205/147, 281/267, 151, 152, 283/153, 285/20. 3 In Devender Singh &Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh CWP No. 816/1992. B C D E F G H 1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 2 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H Ram and others), whose lands were similarly utilised for the construction of the same road and an award4 dated 04.10.2005 was passed by the reference court in their favour. It was held that the reference petitioners were entitled to enhanced compensation of 39,000 per bigha; solatium of 30% per annum on the market value of the land; additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act w.e.f. 16.10.2001 (date of issuance of notification under Section 4) till the date of making of the award by the Collector, i.e. 20.12.2001; and under Section 28, interest of 9% per annum from 16.10.2001 for a period of one year, and thereafter 15% per annum, till date of payment. In 2009, the High Court dismissed5 the appeal against this order by thoseclaimants, who were seeking statutory interest from the date of taking possession (rather than date of initiation of acquisition proceedings).

#4. Similarly situated land owners, filed writ proceedings before the High Court: a writ petition filed by one Anakh Singh, from the adjoining village was allowed by the High Court6 with the direction to acquire lands of the writ petitioners under the Act, with consequential benefits; subsequently other similarly situated owners also received7 the benefit of these directions.

#5. This led the appellants to file a writ petition before the High Court in 2011, seeking compensation for the subject land or initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Act. Relying on a Full bench decision8 of the High Court, it was held in the impugned judgment that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for determination on the starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of, with liberty to file a civil suit in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the appellants have approached this court through these appeals. Contentions of parties

#6. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants argued that the State had illegally usurped the appellants’ 4 Award in Land Ref. Petition No. 10-LAC/4 of 2004 and consolidated matters. 5 Dated 25.08.2009 in RFA No. 1-9/2006. 6 Order dated 23.04.2007 in CWP No. 1192/2004. 7 Order dated 20.12.2013 in CWP No. 1356/2010. 8 Shankar Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh CWP No. 1966/2010-C, judgment dated 02.03.2013 (hereafter “Shankar Dass”). SUKH DUTT RATRA & ANR. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 1047 lands, without following due process of law and reliance was placed on this court’s decision in State of U.P. v. Manohar9 and Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC)10.

#7. It was further submitted that the appellants’ case is on the same footing as that of adjoining land owners who were granted compensation and consequential benefits by land acquisition award dated 04.10.2005, and in subsequent writ proceedings. Counsel urged that the state’s inaction is arbitrary, given that the lands adjoining the subject land were acquired under directions of the High Court, despite it being used for the same purpose.

#8. Counsel highlighted that the Respondent-State had not disputed that the appellants were owners of the subject land, that it had been taken and used by the State for construction of Narag Fagla Road, and that no compensation had been paid. So, given that these facts are undisputed, it was urged that the High Court had erred in dismissing the writ petition, in light of this court’s decision in Air India Ltd. v. Vishal Capoor11.

#9. Counsel drew our attention to a judgment of this court in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh12, which he argued had similar facts and prevailing circumstances: petitioners’ lands had been taken by the State at the same time and for the same purpose as that of the appellants, and this court had after condoning delay of 1756 days, allowed the appeal and directed the State to pay compensation along with all statutory benefits, including solatium, interest, etc.

#10. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, learned counsel on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, urged that the petition was hit by immense delay and latches and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone: appellants had approached the High Court after an inordinate delay of 38 years in 2011, against action taken by the State in 1972-73; and an inordinate delay of about 6 years in approaching this court after passing of the impugned judgment in 2013. Reliance was placed on this court’s decisions