State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs Amar Singh

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The State of Himachal Pradesh filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP No.9090 of 2022, which directed the State to initiate acquisition proceedings for land used for construction of a road during 1984-1985. The State contended that the writ petitioner had consented to the construction of the road and had not demanded any compensation at the relevant time. The Division Bench held that oral consent cannot be presumed unless supported by documentary evidence such as letters, writings or signatures, and that the plea of consent cannot be used to deprive a landowner of legitimate compensation. The Court relied upon the Full Bench decision in Shankar Dass alias Shankru versus State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No.1966 of 2010-C, decided on 2.3.2013) which mandated that oral consent is not tenable in the absence of documentary proof.

The Division Bench affirmed the direction of the Single Judge requiring the State to initiate acquisition proceedings within six weeks in respect of the private land in Khasra No.124 utilized for road construction. The Court found the impugned judgment to be well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and applicable legal principles. The claim for exchange of 4 Marlas of government land in Khasra No.111 in lieu of 6 Marlas of private land was not interfered with, as the Single Judge had already negativated that prayer on the ground that no policy permitting such exchange existed.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, affirming that the State cannot take away private land for public purposes without following the prescribed legal process of acquisition and payment of compensation, and that delay and laches by the landowner in raising a claim does not extinguish the constitutional right to compensation for compulsory deprivation of property.

Catchwords: Letters Patent Appeal · land acquisition · road construction · oral consent · compensation · delay and laches · acquisition proceedings · Article 226 · constitutional right to compensation · private land · compulsory acquisition · Himachal Pradesh