Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act

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
 

Similar News