Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

State Cannot Utilize Private Land Without Legal Acquisition and Compensation: High Court Upholds Lower Courts’ Rulings

11 November 2024 10:52 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Appeal dismissed; State directed to initiate proper land acquisition procedures and compensate landowners.

In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal by the State challenging the judgments of the lower courts regarding the unauthorized use of private land for road construction. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, underscores the legal necessity for due process in land acquisition and the obligation of the State to compensate landowners appropriately.

The case revolves around the construction of the Auhar-Kohina road, where the landowners, led by Hari Ram, claimed that their land was used without consent and without following the due legal process of acquisition. The respondents filed a suit for possession, permanent, and mandatory injunction against the State, which admitted to utilizing the land but argued it was done with the oral consent of the landowners. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, directing the State to acquire the land legally and compensate the owners. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the State’s appeal.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel emphasized the State’s obligation to follow legal procedures in land acquisition. The court found that the State had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but did not complete the subsequent steps, leading to the notification lapsing. “The State cannot utilize private land without compensating the owner in accordance with law,” noted the court.

The State’s defense that the land was used with oral consent from the landowners was rejected. The court highlighted the necessity of written consent or formal acquisition. “The defendants failed to demonstrate that the land was utilized on a consensual basis. No written consent was produced,” the judgment stated.

The judgment reiterated the principle that public use of private land must comply with statutory requirements, including proper acquisition and compensation. “Construction of a public road, while in public interest, does not exempt the State from following due legal processes,” the court observed. The lower courts’ findings that the State acted unlawfully were upheld, as there was no substantial question of law involved.

Justice Goel remarked, “It is settled law that the State cannot be allowed to utilize the property of an individual without compensating him in accordance with law. None can be allowed to utilize the property of another except in accordance with law.”

The High Court’s dismissal of the State’s appeal reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the legal rights of landowners and the necessity of due process in land acquisition. This judgment sends a clear message that public interest projects do not override the requirement for lawful acquisition and fair compensation. The ruling is expected to have a significant impact on future cases involving land acquisition for public use, ensuring that the rights of landowners are protected.


Date of Decision: July 02, 2024
 

Latest Legal News