STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SITA RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LPA No.33 of 2021 This matter has been referred to the Larger Bench by order dtd. 5/4/2021, in view of the conflict of opinion between judgment dtd. 8/8/2017, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.79 of 2017, titled as State of H.P. and others Versus Bhoop Ram and another set of two judgments passed in LPA No.93 of 2017, titled as State of H.P. and ors. Versus Dalip Singh, decided on 28/11/2019 and LPA No.12 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. and others Versus Laiq Ram Dogra, decided on 23/3/2021. The learned Division Bench has formulated the following question for being answered by the Larger Bench:-

(2.) We have heard Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General has argued that the land of the petitioner was utilized for construction of jeapable road in the year 2000-2001 at Muhal Basmol, Development Block Theog. The suit land falls at RD 3/270 to 3/370 and 3/465 to 3/550. The cutting work through said portion was carried out with implied oral consent of all land owners including the respondent-writ petitioner and was completed well before 17/1/2005. The respondent-writ petitioner never objected to survey as well as construction of road at that time. He never claimed payment of compensation till filing of the writ petition in the present case in the year, 2009. As per mandate of the Limitation Act, claim for payment of compensation has to be made within three years, but in the present case, the writ petition has been filed four years after utilization of the land. Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India Versus N. Murugesan, decided on 7/10/2021 in Civil Appeal Nos.2491-2492 of 2021, the learned Advocate General argued that the learned Single Bench has erred in law in not dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. The learned Advocate General, in support of arguments, has also relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Versus Dugal Kumar, decided on 28/7/2008, reported in 2008(14) SCC 295.