ANANT RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents for acquiring his land which stands utilized by the State for the purpose of construction of a road from Kupvi to Daiya in Tehsil Kupvi, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? District Shimla, H.P. in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable for acquisition of private land and compensate the petitioner in accordance with law. The land which stands utilized by the State as per the petitioner for the purpose of construction of the road is comprised in khasra Nos. 518, 601, 642 and 648, at Mohal 000601 and Patwar Circle Bhalu, Tehsil Kupvi, District Shimla, H.P. As per the petitioner the land stood utilized by the respondents without any express consent of the petitioner.

(2.) Though the factum of the utilization of road for the purpose of construction is not under dispute but the stand of the State is that the same was utilized with the consent, given at the spot by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is not as if, only the land of the present petitioner was utilized for the purpose of construction of the road but land of many other persons were also utilized for the purpose, who have voluntarily given their land for the construction of the road. He has further argued that the road has been constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna and there is no provision in the said scheme for acquisition of the land and road was constructed in terms of the said scheme only as the land owners whose land was to be utilized for the purpose of construction of the road, gave their consent for the said purpose. He has further argued that filing of the petition r to is nothing but an afterthought, as after the road stood constructed, petitioner has filed this writ petition so that he can be unduly enriched. He has also argued that claim is belated one as the petitioner has come after six years as from the date when construction of the road was commenced. To this, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the road was constructed in the year 2017 and petitioner has approached this Court without any undue delay.