Pritam Singh v. State of H.P.

mandatory injunctions. That the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of compensation of suit land i.e. Khasra No.291 along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of award with consequential relief for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make the payment of Rs.9,92,336/- with interest @ 15 % w.e.f. the date of award i.e. 26.03.2009 till the payment or any other relief which the Court deems fit.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants/appellants by raising preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, limitation, suppression of material facts etc. On merits, it was averred in the written statement that the compensation of Khasra -4- No.291 amounting to Rs.60,074/- was paid to Pritam Singh one of the plaintiffs on 26.03.2009 for the widening purpose of road, namely, super highway Jahu to Kalhar. It has further been submitted that the suit land initially was acquired in the year 1958-60 and compensation of Rs.547/- was paid to the predecessor of the plaintiffs. Even Rs.109.74 are lying deposited in Treasury in the name of Ganga and others, which are yet not withdrawn. Further, revenue entries as well as registering of mutation have not been denied. Further it was specifically averred that a wrong and false suit has been filed on the basis of miscalculation. Therefore, the defendants/State sought dismissal of the suit filed before the learned trial Court.

6. Learned trial Court framed issues on 18.08.2023 in the following manner:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation qua the suit land to the extent of Rs.9,92,336/- along with @ 15% w.e.f. 26.03.2009, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether suit is not within limitation, as alleged? OPD 3, Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from this Court, is so, its effect? OPD

5. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD

6. Relief. -5-

7. Learned trial Court directed the parties to adduce its evidence in support of their contentions. Thereafter, vide its judgment dated 26.09.2023 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents and it was ordered that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,32,262 after deducting Rs.60,074/- along with simple interest @ 6 per annum from 26.03.2009 till the realization of whole amount which amount is to be paid by the defendants.

8. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants/appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, and the learned Court vide its judgment and decree dated 04.08.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.

9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the defendants/appellants are before this Court by filing the present regular second appeal.

10. It is contended by Mr. Manish Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, that the judgments and decrees, as passed by the learned Courts below, are erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the learned Courts below have not appreciated the real point in controversy and have wrongly decreed the suit as filed by the plaintiffs/appellants and the learned Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that the amount of compensation stands already paid to the claimants/plaintiffs. -6-

11. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Lovneesh Kanwar, duly assisted by Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate, has defended the judgments and decrees as passed by the courts below. He further submits that in view of the mandate, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no person can be deprived of his property without following the due process of law. He also submits that the State has dragged the plaintiffs into uncalled for litigation for more than 30 years and that, although the land of the plaintiffs was utilized way back, yet till date, the amount of compensation has not been paid to them.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.

13. With the consent of the parties, the case is finally heard at admission stage.

14. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the suit land owned by the plaintiffs/appellants was utilized by the State for the construction of road known as Una-Aghar/ Barsar/ Jahoo/ Bhambla/ Kalkhar and Nerchowk. It is further admitted by the respective parties that land has been utilized and the acquisition process was started by the competent authority. It is further submitted that though, the acquisition proceedings were started, but the amount of compensation was not paid by the authority. The plaintiffs were constrained to approach this Court for payment of amount of compensation, however, this Court, by observing that since highly disputes questions of fact are -7- involved in the case disposed of the said petition as having been withdrawn by the plaintiffs with liberty to file civil suit before the competent court of law. Learned trial Court has taken into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for a sum a sum of Rs.9,32,262/- after deducting Rs.60,074/ along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 26.03.2023 till the realization of whole amount.

15. In order to support their contentions, the plaintiff Prittam Singh entered the witness box as PW-1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit Ext.P-1/PW1, wherein he has reiterated the averments as made in the plaint. The documentary evidence in the form of misal hakiyat bandobast jadid Ex. P2/PW1, copy of record of rights Ex.P3/PW1, copy of record of rights for year 2005-2006 Ex.P4/PW1, copy of record of rights of year 2010-2011 Ex.P5/PW1, copy of application under Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act Mark-A, copy of award Mark-B, copy of notice under Section 80 CPC Ex. P6/PW1, copy of judgment passed by this Court Ex.P7/PW1, postal receipts Ex. P8/PW1, acknowledgment Ex.P9/PW1, Ex.P10/PW1 and Ex. P11/PW1 has been tendered in order to substantiate the claim as put forward by the plaintiffs. He has stated in his deposition that he has received Rs.60,074/- when the road was widened. However, he did not receive any compensation from the authorities when the road was -8- constructed. He further stated that in the year 1958 he was about 7-8 years old. He has specifically denied that in the year 1958-1960 compensation of the suit land which was used in road assessed at Rs.547/- was given to his ancestors. In the cross-examination, the State could not extract anything from him in order to demolish the case of the plaintiffs.

16. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiffs, defendants examined DW-1 Anshul Chaudhary, who tendered his affidavit Ext. D- 1/Ext.DW-1 in his examination-in-chief. He has admitted in his deposition that he can say that some portion of the suit land has been acquired. He voluntarily stated that the same was acquired in the year 2009 for the widening purpose. He admitted that in the year 2009

00.08.92 Hect land has been acquired by the defendants. He showed his ignorance that the value of the land has been negotiated as Rs.45,000/- per biswa. He stated that he has no knowledge whether proceedings under Sections 4, 6 and 11 were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. However, the amount of compensation was not paid to the plaintiffs.

17. Vinod Kumar, who was posted as Kanungo in LAC Mandi, was examined as DW-2. He has admitted in his deposition that by issuing notice under Section 4, entire Khasra No.291 was acquired by the authorities. He admitted that the entire record has not been brought by him. Thereafter various opportunities were granted to the -9- defendant to bring on record the entire evidence and ultimately, by the Court’s order, the evidence of the defendants was closed on

05.08.2023.

18. Learned Courts below, after appreciating the entire evidence along with record, rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for remaining compensation amounting to Rs.9,32,282/- after deducting Rs.60,074/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from 26.03.2009. The said finding of fact has been affirmed by the learned first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 04.08.2025.

19. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that no person can be deprived of his property without adopting due process of law.

20. It is admitted fact that the land of the plaintiffs has been utilized by the defendants for the construction of Una- Aghar/ Barsar/ Jahoo/ Bhambla/ Kalkhar and Nerchowk road. It is further admitted that the acquisition proceedings including notification under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the authorities. However, when no amount was paid to the claimants/plaintiffs, they approached this Court by filing CWP No.5064/2010. This Court granted liberty to the plaintiffs to approach the trial Court for rederessal of their grievances. Thereafter, the learned Courts below have passed the judgments and decrees by ordering the payment of compensation to -10- the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the claim as filed by the plaintiffs was stale and highly belated and there was oral consent by the claimants/plaintiffs.

21. The defendants/appellants are constituents of the welfare State. It is well settled that the welfare State cannot claim adverse possession against its citizens. Thus, a suit on the basis of title cannot be said to be time barred which right could only be defeated by proof of perfection by way of adverse possession by the other.

22. Admittedly, the plaintiffs/respondents are the title holders of the suit property. Being the owners of the suit property, they can file a suit at any stage until and unless, their right is defeated by the present appellants/defendants through the perfection of title by way of adverse possession. Being owners of the suit land, the plaintiffs/respondents were well within their right to file a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction since the suit land was utilized by the State for construction of the road in question without adopting due process of law, including payment of compensation.

23. Admittedly, the defendants/appellants were not in possession of any document to show that the plaintiffs had consented for the construction of the road through the suit land. Furthermore, when learned counsel for the State was called upon to substantiate the claim that the plaintiffs had provided either express or implied consent, he was unable to produce any such record. -11-

24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (2020) 2 SCC 569 has held that no person can be forcibly dispossess of his property without any legal sanction and without following the due process of law and depriving her payment of just and fair compensation. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. The Court has held as follows: “12. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12.1. The Appellant was forcibly expropriated of her property in 1967, when the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of the Constitution. Vidaya Devi vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 January, 2020 Article 31 guaranteed the right to private property 1, which could not be deprived without due process of law and upon just and fair compensation.

12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right 2 in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred in that Article The State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 92. 2 Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC

353. -12-

12.3. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai4, wherein this Court held that: “ 6. … Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.” (emphasis supplied)

12.4 In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy5, this Court held that: “21. If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.” (emphasis supplied) 4 (2005) 7 SCC 627.

12.5 In Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., this Court recognized the right to property as a basic human right in the following words: “30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property. "Property must be secured, else liberty cannot subsist" was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is -13- the seed bed which must be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists.” (emphasis supplied)

12.6 In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat,7 this Court held as follows : “48. …In other words, Article 300A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.” (emphasis supplied) 10.3. In this case, the Appellant could not have been forcibly dispossessed of her property without any legal sanction, and without following due process of law, there is no deprivation.”

12.6 In this case, the Appellant could not have been forcibly dispossessed of her property without any legal sanction, and without following due process of law, and depriving her 6 (2011) 9 SCC 354. 7 (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 596. payment of just compensation, being a fundamental right on the date of forcible dispossession in 1967.

12.8. The contention of the State that the Appellant or her predecessors had “orally” consented to the acquisition is completely baseless. We find complete lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the Appellant of her property by the State.

12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors. wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of -14- law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.

12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. 8 (2013) 1 SCC 353. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi− faceted dimension.

12.11. We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the High Court, that since it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to “adverse” possession. The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case. 12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the Appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional Court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it. -15-

12.14. In Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors.,10 this Court while dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows : “There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under Article 9 P.S. Sadasivaswamy v.