BIRBAL Vs. STATE OF H P & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law as well as facts is involved in the aforesaid writ petitions preferred on behalf of the respective petitioners, they all are being taken up together for disposal. Moreover, in all the petitions similar/identical relief(s) have claimed by the petitioners.

(2.) By way of aforesaid writ petitions, petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and have prayed for the following main reliefs:

(3.) Facts, as emerged from the record, are that the land belonging to the petitioners, description whereof is available in para-2 of the petitions respectively, have been used by the respondents for construction of road from 'Jalog to Gadheri' in the month of April, 1998. Respondents started construction work of aforesaid road in the month of April, 1998 and used the land of petitioners for the construction of aforesaid road. Pleadings suggest that the petitioners, at the time of construction of the road, raised objections and prayed that before construction of road, respondents may acquire the land in accordance with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act') and thereafter may commence with the construction of the road in question. However, on the undertaking given by the representatives/officers of the respondents-Department that acquisition proceedings would be started and amount of compensation would be paid in accordance with law, the present petitioners allowed the construction of the road through their land. But, as emerge from record, no compensation, whatsoever, was ever paid to the petitioners in lieu of their land used by the respondents for construction of road in question and as such they were compelled to serve the respondents with the demand notices by registered post. But respondents failed to take any action even after receipt of notice issued on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners by way of Right to Information Act procured information, wherein they were informed that road in question was constructed by the department during the year 1998-2002 under the State budget and the taring work was also carried out on the spot and road was constructed on public demand. However, respondent No.3 informed the petitioner through their counsel that since road in question was made on public demand and moreover, no objection, whatsoever, was raised at the time of construction, there is no question of any payment of compensation in lieu of the land used by them for construction of the road. Respondents also raised the plea of delay and latches and stated that since demand for payment of amount of compensation has been set up after a lapse of more than 10 years, they are not entitled to any compensation on account of land used for the purpose of road in question. When the claim of the petitioners for grant of compensation in lieu of land used by the respondents for construction of road was denied, they approached this Court by way of instant writ petitions.