Moreover, the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. State of H.P

the parties. It is further stated that since in the instant case, road had already been constructed, therefore, on 07.01.1988, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Joint Organization, Bijnor returned the proposed notification under Section 6 to the Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, PWD, Nazibabad so that compensation is paid to the affected persons on basis of agreement between the parties. Although it is not disputed that the land of the petitioners has got affected by construction of the road but the plea taken in the written instructions is that the petitioners did not raise any claim for compensation, as such, the claim now being made by them is barred by waiver and limitation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a communication dated 20.12.2017 by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Joint Organization, Bijnor addressed to Executive Engineer, Construction Division-II, PWD, Nazibabad in reference to a representation dated 08.12.2017 made by various affected persons including the petitioners herein. It refers to the original proposal for acquisition and the letter dated 07.01.1988 by which the proposal was returned with direction to pay compensation to the affected persons on basis of mutual consent. It also clearly mentions that the affected persons were complaining that the compensation had not been paid to them and the said action of the department was not proper. Accordingly, request was made to pay compensation to the affected persons. He submits that the respondents themselves withdrew the acquisition proceedings acknowledging that the land had already been utilized without acquisition and therefore, it would be more appropriate to pay compensation on basis of mutual negotiations. However, the said exercise was kept pending and has not been concluded so far and therefore, the plea that the claim for payment of compensation is barred by waiver and limitation is manifestly unsustainable.

5. The material on record reveals that the respondents had constructed the road/ carried out widening without formal acquisition of land of private persons. The respondents themselves mooted the proposal for acquisition but ultimately did not conclude the proceedings as they were of the opinion that the land having already been used, it would be more appropriate to pay compensation on basis of mutual compromise. It is evident from the letter of Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 20 December 2017 that the said exercise was not carried out and no compensation was paid to the affected persons although their land had been utilized. It also evidences that the affected persons were therefore compelled to make complaint to him. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any default on part of the petitioners.

6. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another vs. State of H.P. and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 410 has held that the State cannot expropriate the land of private individuals without formal acquisition and payment of compensation and cannot defeat their right to claim compensation on ground of waiver and limitation.

7. As there is no material on record that the respondents ever carried out any exercise to obtain title over the land by compulsory acquisition or mutual negotiation, the plea of waiver and limitation is wholly unsustainable.

8. Indisputably, vide G.O. dated 12.05.2016, the State has constituted a Committee for determining compensation in respect of any land which has not been formally acquired but utilized.

8. Consequently, we dispose of the instant petition with direction to respondent No. 2 to refer the claim of the petitioners for compensation to the said Committee within four weeks so that the same is decided by the Committee after proper survey and demarcation within next twelve weeks after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the department. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Mukesh Kr. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

the parties. It is further stated that since in the instant case, road had already been constructed, therefore, on 07.01.1988, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Joint Organization, Bijnor returned the proposed notification under Section 6 to the Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, PWD, Nazibabad so that compensation is paid to the affected persons on basis of agreement between the parties. Although it is not disputed that the land of the petitioners has got affected by construction of the road but the plea taken in the written instructions is that the petitioners did not raise any claim for compensation, as such, the claim now being made by them is barred by waiver and limitation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a communication dated 20.12.2017 by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Joint Organization, Bijnor addressed to Executive Engineer, Construction Division-II, PWD, Nazibabad in reference to a representation dated 08.12.2017 made by various affected persons including the petitioners herein. It refers to the original proposal for acquisition and the letter dated 07.01.1988 by which the proposal was returned with direction to pay compensation to the affected persons on basis of mutual consent. It also clearly mentions that the affected persons were complaining that the compensation had not been paid to them and the said action of the department was not proper. Accordingly, request was made to pay compensation to the affected persons. He submits that the respondents themselves withdrew the acquisition proceedings acknowledging that the land had already been utilized without acquisition and therefore, it would be more appropriate to pay compensation on basis of mutual negotiations. However, the said exercise was kept pending and has not been concluded so far and therefore, the plea that the claim for payment of compensation is barred by waiver and limitation is manifestly unsustainable.

5. The material on record reveals that the respondents had constructed the road/ carried out widening without formal acquisition of land of private persons. The respondents themselves mooted the proposal for acquisition but ultimately did not conclude the proceedings as they were of the opinion that the land having already been used, it would be more appropriate to pay compensation on basis of mutual compromise. It is evident from the letter of Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 20 December 2017 that the said exercise was not carried out and no compensation was paid to the affected persons although their land had been utilized. It also evidences that the affected persons were therefore compelled to make complaint to him. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any default on part of the petitioners.

6. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another vs. State of H.P. and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 410 has held that the State cannot expropriate the land of private individuals without formal acquisition and payment of compensation and cannot defeat their right to claim compensation on ground of waiver and limitation.

7. As there is no material on record that the respondents ever carried out any exercise to obtain title over the land by compulsory acquisition or mutual negotiation, the plea of waiver and limitation is wholly unsustainable.

8. Indisputably, vide G.O. dated 12.05.2016, the State has constituted a Committee for determining compensation in respect of any land which has not been formally acquired but utilized.

8. Consequently, we dispose of the instant petition with direction to respondent No. 2 to refer the claim of the petitioners for compensation to the said Committee within four weeks so that the same is decided by the Committee after proper survey and demarcation within next twelve weeks after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the department. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Mukesh Kr. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad