JAI RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Jai Ram has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a direction to the respondents to initiate proceedings for acquisition of land measuring 1 Bigha 8 Biswas, searing Khasra Nos. 565, 567, 568, 605 and land measuring 1 Bigha 7 Siswas bearing Khasra Nos. 602 and 356, situate at Mauja Deothi, Pargana Dharti, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. The case of the petitioner, as disclosed in the petition, may be summed up thus. The above described land of the petitioner was utilised by the respondents in the construction of a road known as Ghorna -Deothi road, sometime in the year 1991 -92. However, no compensation was paid to the petitioner for the utilisation of the said land. Not only this, even the process for assessment/payment of compensation has not been initiated as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. So a direction has been sought to the respondents to initiate the process for the acquisition of the land and the payment of compensation.

(2.) Respondents in their written reply have -stated that the road was constructed on the demand of the local people and at the time of construction of the road the respondents were given to understand that no compensation for the land utilised in the construction of the road would be claimed by the private owners. It is also alleged that only 1 Bigha 8 Biswas land, comprised in Khasra No, 565, 567, 568 and 605, belonging to the petitioner has been utilised in the construction of the road. As regards the remaining land, it is alleged that Khasra No. 602 does not belong to the petitioner and no portion of khasra No. 356 has been utilised in the construction of the road.

(3.) In the rejoinder, the petitioner has not specifically controverted the plea taken in the reply that khasra No. 602 does not belong to him (the petitioner) and no portion of khasra No. 356 has been utilised in the construction of the road, in question, though, it has been stated in general terms that averments made in the relevant para of the reply ire not correct and that those made in the petition are reiterated. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the jamabandi pertaining to the khasra Nos. 565, 567, 568 and 605 only. Jamabndi pertaining to the other two khasra Nos. i.e., 602 and 356, has not been placed on record. The omission on the part of the petitioner to place the jamabndi of these two numbers is indicative of the fact that the plea of the respondents that khasra No. 602 does not belong to him (the petitioner) and that Khasra No. 356 has not been utilised in the construction of the road, may not be incorrect.