The Himachal Pradesh High Court has rejected an appeal by the state government and affirmed that landowners must be compensated for private property used for road construction without formal acquisition, ruling that delay or unproven verbal consent cannot extinguish property rights.
Court Rejects Government Appeal
Dismissing a regular second appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh administration, Justice Romesh Verma held on July 29 that the state cannot deprive citizens of their property without following statutory procedures. The decision leaves intact prior judicial orders requiring the state to pay statutory compensation, interest, solatium, and Rs 10,000 in litigation costs to Banti Devi and other affected landowners in Bilaspur district.
Addressing the government’s claim that property owners had granted oral consent for the project in 1995, Justice Verma noted that state authorities failed to produce any written records or documentary evidence to substantiate the assertion. The court emphasized that a welfare state cannot rely on delay, limitation periods, or doctrines such as adverse possession to validate the unauthorized occupation of private land.
Discriminatory Compensation Practices Faulted
The high court also highlighted testimony from a state witness who acknowledged that compensation had already been disbursed to other individuals whose land was utilized for the same road. Justice Verma ruled that such selective compensation was impermissible, stating that the government could not discriminate against the remaining landowners once similarly situated individuals had received payment.
Background Of Property Dispute
The legal conflict stems from the construction of the Panol-Jhandutta-Nand-Nagraon road through private plots in Bilaspur district. According to state submissions, the local gram panchayat initially built the road in 1995 with the verbal permission of landowners, and the state public works department took over maintenance in 2002 after Himachal Road Transport Corporation bus services commenced along the route.
The respondents filed suit after being repeatedly denied compensation while neighboring landowners were paid, further alleging that government officials threatened additional damage to their land, crops, and trees.
On April 6, 2024, the Civil Judge in Jhandutta partly decreed the suit in favor of the landowners, treating the matter as a deemed acquisition and directing the state to pay full compensation with statutory benefits. That ruling was affirmed by the District Judge in Bilaspur on December 3, 2024. Finding no substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the high court dismissed the state’s appeal and disposed of all pending applications.
