The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that the State cannot deprive landowners of compensation for land used in public projects, even after long delay or alleged implied consent, upholding established Supreme Court and High Court precedents; confirms binding authority under Article 300A of the Constitution for all similar future acquisition cases involving delayed or purportedly consensual possession by the State.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA No. 616 of 2025 (State of HP and others Vs. Sauju Ram and others) |
| CNR | HPHC010394322025 |
| Date of Registration | 02-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for Himachal Pradesh; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms multiple previous Division Bench and Supreme Court decisions |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law; land acquisition; property rights |
| Questions of Law | Whether compensation can be denied for State-constructed public roads on private land due to delay, laches, or alleged implied consent of landowners. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court reiterated that the right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300A, and the State cannot deprive a citizen of land without payment of just, fair, and lawful compensation, irrespective of delay or purported consent. Landowners similarly situated to those previously compensated must not be discriminated against. Delay and alleged implied consent cannot be valid grounds to deny compensation where State has taken possession for official projects. Supreme Court judgments (Vidya Devi, Sukh Dutt Rattra, Hari Krishna Mandir Trust, Kalyanai) were relied upon. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Road constructed in 2003-2004 under PMGSY; part of petitioners’ land not acquired while adjacent lands were, and compensation denied. Petitioner approached court claiming compensation based on parity with other landowners already paid. State argued implied consent and delay as bar to compensation; lower court directed initiation of acquisition and compensation. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; State Government of Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, and all Indian States facing similar late compensation claims following public works |
| Overrules | None specified (affirms existing precedents) |
| Distinguishes |
Distinguishes claims of implied consent and defenses based on delay from constitutional property rights; follows earlier cases on continued cause of action, parity of landowners |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that delay and alleged implied consent do not bar landowners’ claim to compensation for land taken by the State for public roads.
- Reaffirms binding effect of Article 300A — compensation is constitutionally mandated even after prolonged passage of time.
- Recognizes continuing cause of action for compensation where the State has not acquired land following due process.
- Usefully cites numerous Supreme Court and coordinate bench rulings; robust precedent for landowners claiming delayed compensation.
- State cannot rely on prior silence or purported oral consent once similarly situated persons have been compensated.
- Dismisses repeated State appeals as abuse of process, relying on Supreme Court’s censure.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the record and held that the construction of the road took place in phases, and that some adjoining land owners were compensated via notification and award, whereas the petitioners were not.
- Rejected the State’s arguments that implied consent or delay/laches could defeat the landowners’ rights based on parity with other cases (Vidya Devi, Durgi Devi, Surya Kant, Baragi Ram, etc.).
- Cited Article 300A as guaranteeing a constitutional right to property—deprivation absent due process and compensation is not allowed.
- Followed the Supreme Court (Vidya Devi, Sukh Dutt Rattra, Hari Krishna Mandir Trust, Kalyanai), holding that oral or implied consent, and laches/delay, do not defeat the landowner’s claim for lawful compensation.
- Noted that the same stretches, for the same purpose, with the same facts, were held compensable in earlier judgments, all confirmed up to the Supreme Court.
- The Court found no reason to treat these petitioners differently than others and saw repeated State appeals as unjustified in view of clear settled law.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants/State:
- Land owners gave implied consent; hence, compensation is not required.
- Delay and laches: Landowners waited ~20 years before approaching court, so their claims are barred.
Respondents/Landowners:
- Their land was taken for a public road without compensation.
- Other similarly situated owners along the same road have received compensation; denial to them is arbitrary.
- Relied on prior judgments where similar claims for compensation after delay were upheld.
Factual Background
The dispute arose out of the State’s construction of the ‘Jarol-Khai Ghat via Behna’ link road between 2003-2004 under PMGSY. While land in village Jyor-66 was formally acquired and compensated, land in adjoining village Mohal Sohar, belonging to the petitioners, was used without any acquisition or compensation. Petitioners approached the court, claiming parity with other landowners. The State argued implied consent and delay as bars, but the learned Single Judge had directed acquisition and payment of compensation. The Division Bench reviewed this appeal by the State.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 300A of the Constitution of India: The Court robustly applied this provision, underlining that no person can be deprived of their property save by authority of law; procedural due process and compensation are constitutionally required.
- No statutory “reading down” was engaged; the Court read and applied Article 300A in conformity with Supreme Court precedent.
- The Land Acquisition Act, and related notification/award procedures, were referenced for procedure, but not specifically interpreted or read down.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Justice Ranjan Sharma concurred; no dissent. Both judges agreed on the outcome and reasoning.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment did not announce new procedural rules but strongly condemned repeated and unjustified State appeals in such cases, following Supreme Court censure.
- Recognition of continuing cause of action for compensation claims where land is taken without acquisition, irrespective of time lapse.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows constitutional and Supreme Court mandates.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Addresses limitation, laches, and continuing cause of action for compensation claims.
- 🚨 Repeated Conduct by State Deprecated – Supreme Court condemnation of State’s repeated unmeritorious litigation.
Citations
- Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:30239
- Vidya Devi v. State of HP, (2020) 2 SCC 569
- Sukh Dutt Rattra v. State of HP, (2022) 7 SCC 508
- State of HP v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986) 2 SCC 68
- Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 9 SCC 356
- Kalyanai v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, Civil Appeal No(s) 3189 of 2022
- SLP (Civil) No. 49057 of 2024 (Upender Kumar)
- SLP No. 20577 of 2025 (Prashant Gupta)
- Division Bench Judgments: LPA No. 168 of 2025 (Surya Kant); LPA No. 242 of 2025 (Baragi Ram); LPA No. 174 of 2024 (Jagat Ram); LPA No. 6 of 2025 (Ishwar Dass); LPA No. 68 of 2025 (Charan Dass); LPA No. 183 of 2025 (Amar Singh)
- Durgi Devi v. State of HP, CWP No. 3760/2009, decided 05.07.2016